
Class 
Book 



<? 



Copyright}! . 



COPYRIGHT DEPOSIT 



DEBATE 



ON 



UNIVERSALISM 



AND THE 



RESURRECTION OF 
THE DEAD 



BETWEEN 



REV. JOHN HUGHES, 

of the Universalist Church, 
AND 

ELD. JOHN R. DAILY, 

of the Primitive Baptist Church, 

Held in the Universalist Chapel at Waltonville, Illinois, 
Nov. 17-20, 1908. 

MODERATORS 

Mr. H. P. Daniel, President. 

Rev. J. B. Fosher. Eld. C. W. Radcliff. 

Arthur T. French, Stenographer. 



Indianapolis-: 
DAILY & SONS, PUBLISHERS, 

1909. 



3* 






Entered according to act of Congress, in the year 1909. by 

JOHN R. DAILY 
In the Office of the Librarian of Congress at Washington. 



<g r ( iA?6l3i : 



9-— 
— 



^ 



> 




Eld. John P. Daily 




Rev. John Hughes, D. D. 



PROPOSITIONS AND RULES 



Proposition I. The Scriptures teach that all the humaii 
family will finally be brought to enjoy a state of endless 
holiness and happiness. Mr. Hughes affirms. 

Proposition II. The Scriptures teach that there will be a 
resurrection in a spiritual state of the natural bodies of all 
the dead of the Adamic race, a part of whom will suffer 
endless punishment. Mr. Daily affirms. 

RULES OF DISCUSSION. 

I. The two propositions agreed to shall be discussed by 
the disputants at Waltonville, 111. , the debate to begin Nov. 
17, 1908, to continue four days, two days to be given to the 
discussion of each proposition. 

II There shall be two sessions each day, of two hours 
each, occupying from 10 o'clock a. m. to 12 o'clock, and 
from 2 o'clock p. m. to 4 o'clock p. m. 

III. In the opening of each subject, the affirmant shall 
occupy one hour, and the respondent the same time ; and 
thereafter half hour alternately to the close of the subject. 

IV. On the final negative no new matter shall be intro- 
duced except in reply to what shall have been introduced in 
the closing affirmitive for the first time. 

V. There shall be chosen a board of three moderators, the 
disputants to choose one each, and they to choose a third, 
who shall be the moderator of the board and president mod- 
erator of the debate. 

VI. Hedge's Rules of Logic shall be the rules of decorum 
of the speakers, which are as follows : 

1. The terms in which the question in debate is expressed, 
and the point at issue, should be clearly defineJ, that there 
could be no misunderstanding respecting them. 



£. The parties should mutually consider each other as 
standing on a footing of equality, in respect to the subject in 
debate. Each should regard the other as possessing equal 
talents, knowledge, and a desire for the truth with himself : 
and that it is possible, therefore, that he may be in the 
wrong, and his adversary in the right. 

3. All expressions which are unmeaning, or without effect 
in regard to the subject in debate, should be carefully avoid- 
ed. . 

4. Personal reflections on an adversary should, in no in- 
stance, be indulged. 

5. The consequences of any doctrine are not to be charged 
on him who maintains it, unless he expressly avows them. 

6. As truth, and not victory, is the professed object of 
controversy, whatever proofs may be advanced on either 
side should be examined with fairness and candor ; and any 
attempt to answer an adversary by arts of sophistry, or to 
lessen the force of his reasoning by wit, cavilling or ridicule^ 
is a violation of the rules of honorable controversy. 

Mr. Hughes preferred to occupy one half hour in opening 
his proposition, which was agreed to. 



FIRST PROPOSITION 



THE SCRIPTURES TEACH THAT ALL THE HUMAN FAMILY WILL BB 

FINALLY BROUGHT TO ENJOY A STATE OF ENDLESS HOLINESS AND 

HAPPINESS. 



MR. HUGHES' FIRST SPEECH. 

Gentlemen Moderators, L,adies and Gentle- 
men: — It is a pleasure to me this morning under the 
favor of a good Providence to meet so large and in- 
telligent an audience for the purpose of discussing the 
great questions which pertain to the final destiny of 
the human family. I am glad also that we are to be 
under the control of so competent a Board of Modera- 
tors. They will, of course, be impartial, and enforce 
the Rules of decorum upon both of us without respect 
of persons. It is also a pleasure to me to have for my 
opponent a gentleman of so great a reputation as a de- 
bater, and of scholarship ; a man who is capable in 
every sense of the word to present his side of the con- 
troversy between us. So I pay my respects to him, 
and sincerely hope that this discussion shall be con- 
ducted by us as Christian gentlemen, having a desire 
for the truth only, and for its advancement in the 
world. 

These few words in the way of preliminary and in- 
troduction ; and as I do not wish to waste time more 



P FIRST PROPOSITION, 

than necessary in mere pieliminary I come directly to 
my Proposition, which reads as follows : 

The Scriptures teach that all the human family will 
finally be brought to enjoy a state of endless holiness and 
happiness. 

It is my duty to so define this proposition, that the 
issue may be clearly understood by all of you worthy 
people, so that there can be no misunderstanding con- 
cerning it. By the Scriptures, I mean the Bible, the 
Old and New Testaments. It is the Book of proof in 
this discussion. Generally I shall use the authorized 
version, as you all have it, probably I shall have oc- 
casion, as I claim the right, to refer to American Re" 
vised Version for the purpose of coming more directly 
to the Scriptures as given us by the Holy Spirit. "The 
Scriptures teach," that is, when fairly construed and 
rightly understood, that all the human family, that is, 
all mankind without exception, shall be brought to a 
state of holiness and happiness. That is, I mean they 
shall be holy in character, and consequently happy. 
Men are not to be saved in sin, but from sin; they are 
to become holy. This is to be their final condition ; so 
I am not affirming that all men are saved now, or that 
they will be immediately after death, but finally . This 
state of all men is to be endless; of course it will be, if 
it is a final one, and so the word endless seems to be 
superfluous here. But farther on in the discussion I 
will show that it is endless, however. Now I trust 
you will understand the position I propose to maintain' 
and so I advance to my first proof on this Proposition. 

I. The Nature of God. When the Scriptures 
define the Divine Nature they do it in three simple 



MR. HUGHES' FIRST SPEECH. 7 

words : ''God is love" I Jno. iv : 8. 16. His justice, 
his mercy, his goodness, are but expressions and mani- 
festations of his love. As God is an infinite being, 
and his love is his moral nature, his love must be in- 
finite in degree, unlimited in extent, and endless in 
duration. God loves all mankind of whatever race or 
character, and we are certified that he has manifested 
his love and given full proof of it in the gift of his Son 
to the world. So we read : "God so loved the world, 
that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever 
believeth in him should not perish, but have everlast- 
ing life. Jno. iii : 16. "God commendeth his love 
towards us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ 
died for us." Rom. v : 8. "But God who is rich in 
mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, even 
when we were dead in sins hath quickened us together 
with Christ." Eph. ii: 4, 5. 

So God loves all men, he loves them when they do 
not love him, he loves them when sinners, yea, when 
dead in sin. The divine love is wholly uncaused on 
our part, it being the free expression of his nature, 
and comes to us without condition. There is nothing 
partial in God's love, it is not confined to an elect, or 
a special people, for whom only Christ died, for "He 
is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, 
but also for the sins of the whole world." I Jno. ii : 2, 
God's purpose concerning man's salvation originating 
in infinite benevolence, was formed in the light of in- 
finite knowledge and wisdom. So it is said; "His un- 
derstanding is infinite." Ps. cxlv : 5. "Known unto 
God are all his works from the beginning of the 
world." Act xv : 18 "I am God, and there is none 



8 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

else ; I am God, and there is none like me ; declaring 
the end from the beginning, and from the ancient times 
the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel 
shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure." Isa. xlvi ; 
9, 10. 

Such design, formed by the knowledge that takes in 
all times, all circumstances, and all that man could 
possibly be, would inevitably be perfect, and one 
which could by no possibility prove abortive, nor by 
any agency thwarted. Besides, Almighty power can 
in no way lack ability to carry out the designs of infi- 
nite wisdom. And the "Lord God omnipotent reign- 
eth." Rev. xix : 6. 

And we must not forget that God is as infinitely 
great in his moral nature as in his natural attributes. 
His word of truth will accomplish his pleasure beyond 
all question. So testifies the Prophet Isaiah: "For 
as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, 
and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and 
maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed 
to the sower and bread to the eater : so shall my word 
be that goeth forth out of my mouth ; it shall not re- 
turn unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which 
I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I 
sent it." Isa. lv : 10, 11. 

Infinite benevolence, whose purposes are formed in 
infinite wisdom, and backed by infinite power, can 
never fail to full accomplishment, unless, indeed, man 
shouldget beyond the reach and influence of divine 
love,. but that is impossible as St. Paul has implicitly 
taught us : "For I am pursuaded, that ueither death, 
nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor 



MR. HUGHES' FIRST SPEECH. 9 

things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor 
depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate 
us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our 
Lord." Rom. viii : 38. 39. 

II. The Fatherhood of God. That God is the 
Father of all mankind is the clear teaching of the 
Bible : "Have we not all one Father? Hath not one 
God created us?" Mai. ii : 10. "But to us there is 
but the one God, the Father." I Cor. viii : 6. "One 
God and Father of all." Eph. iv : 6. "Call no man 
your father upon the earth; for one is your Father, 
which is in Heaven;" Matt, xxiii: 9. 

The unity of the Divine Nature, and the oneness of 
the Divine Paternity are related truths; — There is the 
' ' One God, ' ' and he is the ' ' One Father. ' ' 

To deny the universal Fatherhood of God, is to deny 
the universal brotherhood of man ; to invalidate . the 
Golden Rule ; nullify the second great commandment ; 
and make void the eternal reason which underlies the 
.Saviour's command : "Love your enemies ; do good to 
them that hate you ; bless them that curse you ; and 
pray for them which despitefully use you and perse- 
cute you, that }^e may be the children of your Father 
which is in heaven." Matt, v: 44. 45. If not relat- 
ed to them , why love them? 

God constituted himself the Father of men by creat- 
ing them in his image. "So God created man in his 
own image." Gen. i : 27. It is not simply by crea- 
tion aloire that man becomes the child of God, but by 
virtue of imparting the divine nature in creating him 
in his image. The divine in man is not the flesh, nor 
of the bodily form, but as "God is Spirit," (Jno. iv : 



10 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

24.) it is in our Spiritual natures that we are related 
to him. The children of God are not flesh and blood, 
but partakers of it only, as we learn in Heb. ii : 14. 
' 'Forasmuch as the children are partakers of flesh and 
blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same." 
So God is the "Father of Spirits." Heb. xii : 9. 

The paternal relation is a real one. It is a tie of 
nature. Not something that can be assumed or laid 
aside at pleasure. The parent cannot dissolve the re- 
lationship existing between himself and his child, let 
that child become what it will ; nor can he rid him- 
self of the obligation of a father. The wandering sin- 
ful prodigal could look back to a father and & father' s 
house. God himself cannot break the relationship 
between himself and his children, short of their anni- 
hilation, or the destruction of the attributes which 
make them men. 

Nor can it be said that man lost the divine image 
through sin, and that he severed the kinship between 
himself and God ; for four thousand years after the 
creation it was declared that "men are made after the 
similitude of God." J as. iii : 9. Sin does not destroy 
this relationship. God addresses the Jews as "back- 
sliding children." Jer. iii : 14. Why call them child- 
ren if sin destroys that relationship ? Besides, Paul 
recognizes the unconverted heathen at Athens as "the 
offspri7ig of God. ' ' 

"For in him we live and move and have our being ; as cer- 
tain of your own poets have said. For we are also his off- 
spring. Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we 
ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or 
silver, or stone, given by art and man's device." Acts, xvii : 
28. 29. 



MR. HUGHES' FIRST SPEECH, II 

If the heathen idolators are God's offspring, why 
not then all men his children ? 

But it may be said, that some are called "the child- 
ren of the devil," in contradistinction to the children 
of God, But the phrases thus used are descriptive of 
character, and not of relationship, as is common in 
the New Testament, and have no reference to the 
question in hand. So some are called the "Sons of 
thunder," Matt, iii : 17. "Children of this world." 
Luke, xvi : 18. "Children of wisdom." Matt, xi : 16. 
"Children of light." Jno. xii : 36. Children of diso- 
bedience." Eph. ii : 2. Not that they are the off- 
spring of the things named, but because of character, 
istic quality. So when men are "called the children 
of the devil," it is descriptive of character, and not 
that they are the offspring of a fallen spirit. 

So also men may be the children of God in a char- 
acteristic sense, as in Matt, v: 44. 45. "Love your 
enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them 
that hate you, pray for them that despitefully use 
you, and persecute you, that ye may be the children 
of your Father which is in heaven." Now what can 
a man do to become the child of his father other than 
in a characteristic sense ? The child that looks like 
his father and acts like him, we call the child of his 
father ; and no one mistakes our meaning. 

God is therefore the Father of all mankind ; and as 
he has constituted himself as such, and given himself 
that endearing name, we have the right to all that it 
means to us, and to the eternal hope based upon that 
divine fact. We have a right to say that his love 
Paternal resembles that of the good and wise earthly 



12 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

parent, while it is infinitely greater and far more en- 
during, as he is infinite in his nature and unchange- 
able in all his perfections. The Scriptures bear full 
and explicit testimony to this point. 

"Can a woman forget her sucking child, that she should 
not have compassion on the son of her womb ? Yea, they 
may forget, yet will I not forget thee. " Isa. xlix : 15. 

"Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, 
will he give him a stone? Or if he ask a fish, will he give 
him a serpent ? If ye then, being evil, know how to give 
good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your 
Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask 
him." Matt, vii : 9. 11. 

God then as our Father is more loving and more 
ready to give than the earthly father; and his love is 
more tender than the mother for her babe. 

We can then but believe that God our Father will 
be true to that relation. He cannot deny himself. 
To believe any thing else distrusts his faithfulness, 
and dishonors his love. We can but hold, in view of 
this most precious of all truths, that the divine gov- 
ernment will be a Paternal one ; and that divine 
punishments will be Fatherly eorrections . And we 
may assert with all confidence, that the final issue of 
the divine government, and the ultimate fate of all 
men will be consistent with the infinitely loving 
character of our Heavenly Father. — [Time expired. 



kk. daily's FIRST REPLY, t^ 

MR. DAILY'S FIRST REPLY. 

Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and Gen- 
tlemen : — In rising to reply to the first speech of un- 
worthy opponent, and thus open my part of the dis- 
cussion to which I am now committed, I realize the 
responsibility of the position I assume. There are 
some considerations, however, that render this occa- 
sion one of pleasure to me. It is a great pleasure to 
me that we have an intelligent audience of candid 
people, who are capable of weighing the arguments 
that may be advanced and duly appreciating them. 
I feel glad that we have been able to secure the ser- 
vices of the gentlemen who are to act as our modera- 
tors, and I am sure that the debate will be carried on 
to the satisfaction of all so far as they are responsible 
for its conduct. It is also a source of pleasure to me 
that I have as my opponent Mr. John Hughes, of 
whom I have heard, after whom I have read, and 
who has been for so many years the acknowledged 
champion of 1 the Universalist faith. I am sure ' that 
if the cause he represents in this discussion is capable 
of being upheld he will uphold it. If his cause fails 
it will not be because of any lack of ability on the 
part of the one chosen to champion it. 

It is my duty to pay due attention to the arguments 
offered in the speech to which you have just listened. 
It is not to be expected that I should notice every 
passage of scripture quoted, but that I should give 
such attention to the arguments adduced as their im- 
portance demands, and show that the scriptures used 
do not prove the arguments. The first argument 



1 4 £lRST PROPOSITION. 

brought forward was based upon the nature of God, 
and particularly his nature in regard to his love. The 
argument was made, and an attempt was made to 
prove it, not only that God is love, but that he loves 
the entire human family, all of them exactly alike. 
Now as to the "human family" referred to in this 
argument, and to which reference will be made 
throughout this discussion, I ask brother Hughes to 
tell us what he means by that family. I ask him if 
they whom God created of the dust of the earth con- 
stitute the human family. Is the human family the 
one thus created, or is it a family of invisible spirits? 
The argument drawn from the love of God simply 
refutes itself. The argument is, God is love, there- 
fore all men will be finally brought to enjoy a state 
of endless holiness and happiness. But I can as logic- 
ally reason that God is love, therefore all men are 
now holy and happy. We all know that the latter 
conclusion is false, for all men are not now holy and 
happy. The latter conclusion being false, the pre- 
sumption is that the former is false also, for they are 
drawn from the same premise. The love of God has 
failed to produce the holiness and happiness of all in 
ages past, it still fails to produce that result, and the 
certain assurance is that it will continue to fail to 
prodnce such a result. Men, notwithstanding God's 
love, have gone on in sin, waxing worse and worse, 
deceiving and being deceived. After this life there 
will be some degree of separation, even according to 
Universalists, the righteous being elevated somewhat 
above those who die in sin and rebellion. Now if 
such are not saved here, in the company of the right- 



MR. Daily's first reply. 15 

eous and having the advantage of such a favorable 
environment, there can be no evidence whatever that 
they will ever be saved in the world to come, since 
God's love is as strong and unchangeable as it will 
ever be, and since in eternity they will be separated 
from the influence of the righteous. If they continue 
to hate God here, notwithstanding his love and the 
good influence of the righteous, it is to be reasonably 
supposed that they will always continue to hate him. 

But love is not the only passion attributed to God. 
While it is said that God is love, it is also said that 
he is a consuming fire, and that vengeance belongs to 
him. 

Deut. xxxii : 34, 35 : "Is not this laid up in store for me, 
and sealed up among my treasures ? To me belongeth ven- 
geance, and recompence ; their foot shall slide in due time : 
for the day of their calamity is at hand, and the things that 
shall come upon them make haste." 

Rom. xii : 19 : "Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, 
but rather give place unto wrath : for it is written, Ven- 
geance is mine ; I will repay, saith the Lord. ' ' 

It is here declared that vengeance belongs exclusive- 
ly to God. It is also declared in Heb. xii : 29, that 
God is a consuming fire. So while my opponent 
argues that God is love, therefore all will be brought 
to enjoy a state of holiness and happiness, I can argue 
with the same parity of reasoning, that God is a con- 
suming fire, therefore all will be finally brought to a 
state of wretchedness and misery. 

The argument of my opponent, drawn from 
the love of God, is based on the assumption that God 
loves every member of the human family exactly 
alike. This is a mere assumption of his, which he 



t6 MR. DAItY*S PIRS? REPLY. 

has failed to prove, and which he will never succeed 
in proving. This I most positively deny, and I shall 
now proceed to prove my denial. 

Rom. ix : 10, 13: "And not only this ; but when Rebecca 
also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac, (for the 
children being not yet born, neither having done any good or 
evil, that the purpose of God according to election might 
stand, not of works, but of him that calleth ;) it was said 
unto her, the elder shall serve the younger. As it is written 
Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. ' ' 

As Paul here refers to the case of Jacob and Esau 
to demonstrate and prove the doctrine of election, and 
show that it is not of works but of God who calleth, 
Jacob represents the elect of God and Esau the re- 
mainder of mankind. This cannot be successfully 
denied. Since God is unchangeable, he will love those 
in eternity whom he loves in time, and he will hate 
those in eternity whom he hates in time. This propo- 
sition stands in refutation of his argument and cannot 
be overthrown. It follows as an unavoidable conclu- 
sion that God does not love all alike, and that all will 
not be finally brought to enjoy a state of endless holi- 
ness and happiness. All the passages quoted by Bro. 
Hughes that speak of the love of God cannot be con- 
strued to prove that he loves every member alike. 
This argument fails, therefore, to prove the doctrine 
expressed by his proposition. 

The next argument introduced in support of this 
proposition is that God is the Father of the entire 
human race ; the Father of all the human family. 
Brother Hughes has undertaken to argue that God is 
Father of all the human family because he created 
them. In supposed proof of this proposition he quo- 



MR. DAILY'S FIRST REPLY. 1 7 

Mai. ii : 10, "Have we not all one Father? Hath 
not one God created us?" The prophet is not ad- 
dressing the entire human family in this passage, but 
a peculiar, special people. In this passage, "But to 
us there is but one God, the Father," Paul is not 
addressing the whole world, but the church at Corinth 
and them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to 
be saints. See I. Cor. i : 2. The same is true of the 
other passages that refer to God as a Father 

The argument made was, I will have you notice, 
that God is the Creator of the human family, and is 
therefore the Father of all. Does he mean that he is 
the Father of the man that he created of the dust of 
the earth ? He has presented in this first speech of 
his an important issue that will be kept before the 
people throughout this discussion. He has argued 
that the children of God, comprising the whole human 
family, is a family of spirits, and not of flesh. Ac- 
cording to this position none of us ever saw a human 
being ! I see before me a large audience, but if Bro. 
Hughes is correct / do not see a human being before 
me ! If the human family are all to be brought to 
enjoy a state of endless holiness and happiness, and 
all are the children of God, and God's children con- 
sist only of a family of invisible spirits, then God did 
not create the human f amity of the dust of the earth, 
and no one ever saw a human bei?ig ! 

1. If God is the Father of all, in the sense of being 
their Creator, he was the Father of Adam when he 
was holy and happy. Since that relation did not pre- 
serve man from becoming unholy and wretched, there 
can be no just reason for supposing that relationship 



18 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

will ever restore those to holiness and happiness who 
have long lived in wilfnl sin against God. 

2 . The providence of God is a complete refutation 
of the argument drawn from the supposed universal 
fatherhood of God as our Creator. God drowned the 
old world. He burned many in the destruction of 
Sodom and Gomorrah. These things are consistent 
with his character as a Father or the} 7 are not. If 
they are not, then he is not the Father of all, and the 
argument falls to the ground. If they are, then he 
could do all that the Bible teaches he will do to the 
wicked in hell and still be a Father in the sense of 
creation. 

3. If God is the Father of all, in the sense of crea- 
tion, he is as much so now as he ever will be. As all 
are not made holy and happy now, as a result of God's 
being Father in the sense of creation, there is no good 
reason for believing that all will ever be holy and hap- 
py as a result of that relation. 

4. If God is the Father all mankind because of cre- 
ation, he is as much the Father of the brute creation. 
If it be said he is merely the Father of the spirits of all 
men as their Creator, then it is as reasonable to suppose 
him to be the Father of the spirits of all beasts. Kccle. 
iii : 21 : "Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth 
upward, or the spirit of the beast that goeth down- 
ward to the earth?" These reductio ad absurda cannot 
be set aside. They prove to a demonstration the ab- 
surdity and falsity of the proposition. 

5. Men are said to be the children of God by adop- 
tion. 

Rom. viii. 15 : "For ye have not received the spirit of 



Mr. daily's first reply. 19 

bondage again to fear ; but ye have received the spirit of 
adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father." 

Eph. i. 4, 5 : "According as he hath chosen us in him be- 
fore the foundation of the world, that we should be holy 
and without blame before him in love : having predestinated 
us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ unto him- 
self, according to the good pleasure of his will." 

A man cannot adopt his own child, which is already 
as much his child .as it can be, but he ma}' take a 
child not his own and make it his by adoption. If all 
are the children of God by nature and natural crea- 
tion, then ?ione of them can be adopted! If any are 
adopted and thus become his children,, then those not 
thus adopted are not his children. This is true accord- 
ing to Rom. ix. 8 : "That is, they which are the 
children of the flesh, these are not the children of 
God ; but the children of the promise are counted for 
the seed." This is positive proof that all are not the 
children of the promise, and are not, therefore, the 
children of God. Again, Heb. xii. 8 : "But if ye be 
without chastisements, whereof all are partakers, then 
are ye bastards, and not sons." This shows that all 
the children of God are partakers of his chastisements, 
and that some are not. Those who are not are bas- 
tards and not so?is I Then all are not the sons of God. 
6. If being created originally constituted us chil- 
dren of God, then there can be no reason shown why 
any must be born again. Being born of the flesh 
only, constitutes us children of the flesh, and not the 
spiritual children of God. To become the spiritual 
children of God we must be bor7i again. 

John iii. 3—8 : "Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, 
verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he can- 



20 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

not see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus said unto him, how 
can a man be born when he is old ? Can he enter a second 
time into his mother's womb, and be born ? Jesus answered, 
Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of the 
water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of 
God. That which is born of flesh is flesh ; and that which is 
born of the Spirit is Spirit. Marvel not that I said unto 
thee, Ye must be born again. The wind bloweth where it 
listeth ; and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not 
tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth : so is every one 
that is born of the Spirit. ' ' 

7. If any people on earth could claim God as their 
Father on the ground of natural relationship, that 
people were the Jews. They boasted of their sonship. 
If Universalism had been true, Jesus would have told 
them that they were correct in their notion, and that 
all are children of God. Instead of sanctioning their 
opinion, and teaching the doctrine of Universalism, 
he stood in direct opposition to their claim, and POSI- 
TIVELY denied IT ! John viii. 41, 44 : "Ye do the 
deeds of your Father. Then said they to him, We 
be not born of fornication ; we have one Father, even 
God." Now, if Universalism had been true, Jesus 
would have told them that God was really their 
Father, in actual relationship, but they had become 
the children of another in mere character. Iyisten 
what he said : "Jesus said unto them, If God were 
your Father, ye would love me, for I proceeded and 
came forth from God." Why did Christ not say, 
God is the Father of all of you ? He did not say it 
because it was not true ! Their not loving him proved 
that God was not their Father. I John iii. 10: "In 
this the children of God are manifested, and the child- 
ren of the devil : whosoever doeth not righteousness is 



MR. DAILY'S FIRST REPLY. 21 

not of God" (not a child of God). Matt, xiii: 38 : 
"The field is the world ; the good seed are the children 
of the kingdom." It is plainly taught in these pas- 
sages that all are not the children of God. 

8. The following passage positively teaches that all 
are not the children of God. 

Rom. viii : 14 — 16 : "For as many as are led by the Spirit 
of God, they are the sons of God. For ye have not received 
the spirit of bondage again to fear, but ye have received the 
Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The 
Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit that we are the 
children of God : and if children, then heirs ; heirs of God, 
and joint-heirs with Christ." 

Since as many as are led by the Spirit of God are 
the sons of God, those who are not thus led are not 
his sons. Since none can cry, "Abba, Father," ex- 
cept those who have received the Spirit of adoption, 
no others have any right to claim him as their Father. 
If all were the children of God, the Spirit to bear witness 
to that fact would not be needed. The expression, "If 
children, then heirs ; heirs of God, and joint-heirs 
with Christ," clearly implies that all are not children 
of God, and consequently not his heirs. 

I shall devote the remainder of my time to the pre- 
sentation of negative arguments: 

Negative Argument I. My first negative argument 
is, that at the time of the resurrection some will be 
unjust, and will be thus distinguished from the just. 

Acts xxiv. 14, 15: "But this I confess unto thee, that 
after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God 
of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the 
law and the prophets: and have hope toward God, which they 
themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of 
the dead, both of the just and unjust." 



22 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

At the resurrection of the dead, spoken of in this 
passage by Paul, both the just and the unjust will 
enter eternity. As some will enter eternity in an un- 
justified state, they will continue in that state unless 
they are changed after entering eternity. I deny 
that any change will be made in the condition of the 
unjust in eternity, or after the resurrection. As some 
will enter eternity at the resurrection in an unjustified 
state, and as there will be no change made in their 
condition after the resurrection, they will never be 
brought to enjoy a state of endless holiness and 
happiness. I challenge Brother Hughes to prove that 
there will ever be any change in any after resurrection. 
Those who enter eternity unjustified will remain so 
forever, and those who enter it justfied will remain 
so. This truth is declared by the angel to the Revela- 
tor John: "He that is unjust, let him be unjust still." 

Negative Argument II. My Second negative argu- 
ment is predicated on the fact that Jesus plainly asserts 
that there is danger of being cast into everlasting fire, 
aud that this shall be to them everlasting punishment. 
Matt, xviii. 8: "It is better for thee to enter into life 
maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to 
be cast into everlasting fire." This language of Jesus 
is without significance, or at least it is misleading, 
if there is no danger at all of being cast into everlast- 
ing fire. It would be blasphemy to accuse Jesus of 
using language that is without significance or that is 
misleading. Those who heard him use this language 
could not fail to understand him to declare there was 
danger of being cast into everlasting fire. Matt. xxv. 
41: "Then shall he say also unto them on the left 



MR. HUGHES SECOND SPFKCH. 23 

hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting 
fire, prepared for the devil and his angels." — [Time 
expired. 

MR, HUGHES' SECOND SPEECH. 



Brother Moderators, Ladies and Gentle- 
men: — Having heard Bro. Daily's reply to my first 
speech, I have no disposition to retreat from my posi- 
tion which I still consider well taken. At j; the;, battle 
of Marengo, Napoleon had at one time lost hope, 
and considering that his great army was defeated, he 
called to a little drummer boy, and ordered him to 
beat a retreat, "Dessaix never taught me retreat, but 
I can beat a charge that will call the dead into line. O 
ma}^ I beat a charge?" A charge was^ beaten, and 
Marengo was added to Napoleon's victories. 

I propose to stand by my position, for I '"had con- 
sidered well every statement made before meeting Bro. 
Daily, and he would have saved nearly half of his 
time, had he confined himself to the proposition, 
and he will need it all before we finish the debate. 

He says he would be glad for Universalism to be 
true if I can prove it by the Scriptures. That shows 
that his heart is not reconciled to the doctrine of end. 
less misery. Who would not love to have all men 
to be saved ? 

He wants me to define what I mean by the human 
family. I know of but one human family, and 
I showed you that man was created in God's 



24 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

image. As to the body he was formed of the dust of 
the ground, but that it was his spiritual nature that 
was created in the divine image, and that is the essen- 
tial part. For God is the ''Father of Spirits." Heb. 
xii. 9. And he is "the God of the spirits of all flesh." 
Num. xvi, 22. I said distinctly when I was speaking 
of the Fatherhood of God, that God is not the Father 
of men simply because he created them, for that 
would make him the father of all he has created, even 
of animals. But that he is the father of the human 
family because he created them "in his image." And 
so we read in Luke's genealogy (hi. 38.) "which was 
the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which 
was the son of Adam, which was the son of God." 
Did Adam ever lose that sonship ? I am not advoca- 
ting the salvation of man's body. As to man's being 
formed of the dust of the ground, if Bro. Daily wishes 
to pin down that to mean that God created nothing 
but the body, let him remember, that God "breathed 
into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a 
living soul." Gen. ii. 7. 

In replying to my first argument on the Divine 
Nature he fails to notice the passages I quoted in my 
proof, and my reasoning upon them. I certainly 
showed that God loved the world, and that the proof 
of it was in the gift of his Son. That he loved men 
while sinners, even when dead in sin, so could not but 
be a universal love. This attempt at a reply to this: 
that God is a "God of vengeance" and that love is not 
the only attribute, is not well taken. Vengeance is not 
an attribute, and the words "vengeance is mine," 
Rom. xii. 19, is only an assertion of God's right to 



MR. HUGHES' SECOND SPEECH. 25 

punish, and love is concerned in just punishment as 
well as justice. Love is not an attribute of God, but 
his nature, and his attributes are but expressions of it. 
But again "God is a consuming fire." But the fire 
does not consume his children, but burns up the dross 
and filth in them. As in Isa. iv. 4. "When the Lord 
shall have washed' away the filth of the daughters of 
Zion, and shall' have purged the blood of Jerusalem 
from the midst thereof by the spirit of judgment, and 
by the spirit of burning." And again in Kzek. xxii. 
"I will gather you in the midst of Jerusalem, as they 
gather silver, and brass, and iron, and lead into the 
midst of the furnace, to blow the fire upon it to melt it, 
so will I gather you in mine anger and in my fury, 
and will leave you there and melt you, yea I will gath- 
er you and blow upon you in the fire of my wrath, 
and ye shall be melted in the midst thereof. As silver 
is melted in the midst of the furnace, so shall ye be 
melted in the midst thereof; and ye shall know that I 
the Lord have poured out my fury upon you." All 
of this we learn from verse 15 was to consume their 
filthiness out of them. And it was, though severe, a 
beneficent punishment, rather than vindictive ven- 
geance. 

In the context in Romans where it is said, "Ven- 
geance is mine, I will repay, saith the Lord," it is 
made clear that human punishment under God, by 
the Magistrate, is the meaning of ivrath and vengeance. 

"For he is the minister of God to thee for good. 
But if thou do that which is evil be afraid, for he 
beareth not the sword in vain ; for he is the minister of 
God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth 



26 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

evil/' Rom. 13: 4. 

But we have the quotation ; "Jacob have I loved, 
but Esau have I hated," with the remark; "whom 
God hates in this life, he will hate in eternity." But 
if my brother will investigate he will find that Mai. 
i: 2-4, to which St. Paul refers, has reference to two 
nations, the Jews and the Edomites, and refers to God's 
providential dealings with them in this life, and has 
no reference to eternity' It has no reference to God's 
personal relationship with the individuals of these na- 
tions. The Jews were a chosen peculiar people in 
God's purpose of love, which embraces the good of 
the race. They were elect, but not for themselves 
alone; for through them salvation was to come to the 
Gentiles. Rom. xi: n. No man is elected for himself 
only. And many times the greater suffering comes 
upon the elect. The higher position called to, the 
greater the responsibility. God hates no one in time. 
He will hate no one in eternity. He has no reason to 
hate. He cannot hate because he is love. God loves 
all, even the chief est sinners; and has commended his 
love to them in that Christ died for them. Rom. v: 8. 

He says, I assume that God is the Father of all 
things he created. No sir, I did not. I proved 
that God is the Father of all men, because he created 
them in his image, and I carefully guarded that point. 
But God burned Sodom and Gomorrah, and he asks if 
they will be saved? I believe so finally. I believe in 
just punishment as well as he does. Whom God 
loveth he chasteneth, and I believe God took away 
those wicked cities as "he saw good." The punish- 
ment of the Jews was greater than that of Sodom, I^am. 



MR. HUGHES SECOND SPEECH. 27 

iv: 6. "For the punishment of the daughter of my 
people is greater than the punishment of the sin of 
Sodom which was overthrown as in a moment, and no 
hands stayed on her." Its punishment could not 
then be endless. And I cannot see how this affects 
the question of the final holiness and happiness of all 
men. 

But if all men are the children of God he cannot see 
how they can become children by adoption. They 
can become children by adoption, just as they become 
children characteristically, as I explained in making 
my argument on the Fatherhood of God. One point 
covers the other. First, men are the children of God 
by relationship, then characteristically. I quoted 
several passages on that point, and I think made my- 
self clear on it. And it was in this sense of character 
and not of relationship Jesus called the Jews the child- 
ren of the devil, Jno viii: 44. It is in this same chap- 
ter that Jesus says to the Jews, "If ye were Abraham's 
children ye would do the works of Abraham." Verse 
39. But it is in the sense of relationship that he says, 
"I know that ye are Abraham's seed," and again, 
"Your father Abraham rejoiced tc see my day." In 
one case they are the children of Abraham, in the 
sense of character, in the other they were not. This 
illustrates and makes clear how it is that the whole 
human family are the children of God by relationship, 
and yet that men of evil character can be called the 
children of the evil one. 

Mr. Daily quotes the words, "let him that is unjust 
be unjust still" from Rev. xxii. n, to prove that 
there can be no change after death. It would be well 



28 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

for him to show that that passage refers to the after 
death state, before he assumes that it proves that there 
will be no change after that time, and so that the 
wicked must remain unjust to all eternity. If that 
were true, Paul was wrong in teaching, "As in Adam 
all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." 
I Cor, xv, 22. 

But God is love, and is the Father of all men just 
as much now as he ever will be, and all are not saved 
now^ and so his love and Fatherhood are no proof 
that they ever will be. But I reply, has the divine 
exhausted itself? Has it done all for man it ever 
will do? Are the elect all saved now? If not, what 
proof is there that they ever will be? Christ's reign 
is a progressive one. The work of salvation is a pro- 
gressive one. "As it is written, Eye hath not seen, 
nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of 
man, the things which God hath prepared for them that 
love him."' I Cor. ii. 9. So I think we may trust 
••God's love for the future as well as the past, and not 
believe that his work is done, or that his Fatherhood 
will not still receive prodigals, and his son still will 
seek for his lost sheep until he finds them. Luke xv. 
4. I come now to my Third Argument. 

III. Paul's Statement of the Gospel. 

"Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars hill, and said, ye 
men of Athens, I perceive that in all things, ye are too 
superstitious, for as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, 
I found an altar to the unknown God. Whom, therefore, ye 
ignorantly worship, him I declare unto you. God that made 
the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of 
heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands ; 
neither is worshiped with men's hands, as though he needeth 



MR. HUGHES' SECOND SPEECH. 20. 

anything, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath and all 
things; and hath made of one blood all nations of men for to 
dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined th e 
times before appointed and the bounds of their habitation ; 
that they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel 
after him. and find him, though he be not far from every 
one of us ; for in him we live and move, and have our being ; 
as certain of your own poets have said. For we are also his 
offspring. Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, 
we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or 
silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device. And at the 
times of this ignorance God winked at ; but now commandeth 
all men everywhere to repent ; because he hath appointed a 
day, in which he will judge the world in righteousness by 
that man whom he hath ordained ; whereof he hath given 
assurance to all men, in that he hath raised him from the 
dead." Act. xvii. 22-31. 

On this passage I note the following points. 

i. God is the creator of heaven and earth, and all 
things therein. 

2. He hath made of one all nations of men to dwell 
on all the face of the earth. There is then a unity of 
the race. 

3 . All are the offspring of God, so related to him 
as children. This is said to idolatrous heathen. 

4. There is a sovereignty of God over all men, to 
the end that they should seek the Lord if haply they 
might feel after him and find him. 

5. As God is a sovereign, so there is a universal 
responsibility of men to him ; and having introduced 
this new dispensation of light and knowledge he com- 
mands all men everywhere to repent. If the benefits 
of this new kingdom of grace was not designed for 
all men, there Would not be this universal command. 

6. In this new era Christ has universal rule given 



36 PtRST PROPOSITION. 

him over men as the Judge of all. 

7. In all this there is the one God, Creator and 
Father of all. His sovereignty has in it the purpose 
that all should seek the Iyord. The one responsibility 
of all men clearly shows the one divine purpose for 
the salvation of all. 

IV. Universal Subjection Through Christ. 

"And God said, Let us make man in our image, 
after our likeness ; and let them have dominion over 
the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the 
cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing 
that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his 
own image, in the image of God created he him ; male and 
female created he them. And God blessed them, and God 
said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the 
earth, and subdue it ; and have dominion over the fish of the 
sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing 
that moveth upon the earth." Gen. i. 26-28. 

''When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, 
the moon and stars, which thou hast ordained ; what is man, 
that thou art mindful of him, and the son of man, that thou 
visitest him? For thou hast made him a little lower than 
the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honor. 
Thou madest him to have* dominion over the works of thy 
hands ; thou hast put all things under his feet." Ps. viii. 3-6. 

"But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is 
man that thou art mindful of him, or the son of man that 
thou visitest him? Thou madest him a little lower than the 
angels ; thou crownedst him with glory and honor, and didst 
set him over the works of thy hands. Thou hast put all 
things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all 
jn subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under 
him. But now we see not yet all things put under him. 
But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the 
angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and 
honor ; that he by the grace of God should taste of death for 
every man." Heb. ii. 6-9. 



MR. HITCHES* SECOND SPEECH. £1 

I . By virtue of the Divine Image in which mart 
was created he is given domi?iion over all the earth. 

2. This is man as the race, wliom God created to 
dwell an all the face of the earth, with the task to sub-- 
due it. 

3. So completely universal was this subjection, that 
there was ?iolhing left that was not put under him. 

4. This purposed subjection is not fully accom- 
plished. "We see not yet all things put under him." 

5 «,But we see the sure means, and the certain proof 
of its final consummation. "We see Jesus who tasted 
death for every man/' 

6 As it is man the race to whom is given this uni- 
versal dominion, yet to be consummated through 
Jesus, so he tasted of death for every man. And so 
amid all these universals, his death is for all men uni- 
versally. "There is nothing that is not put under 
him." And because this work is not yet done, is no 
proof that it never will be; for we have sure proof of 
its final accomplishment. — [Time expired. 



MR. DAILY'S SECOND REPLY. 



Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and Gentle- 
men: — Like my brother, I have never learned to beat 
a retreat. So it is very likely there will be no retreat 
during this discussion unless one or the other of us 
learns something new. In explaining what he means 
by the term, human family, he says he knows of but 
one human family, and then says that the body, which 



3^ FIRST PROPOSITION. 

was formed of the dust of the ground, does not form 
the essential part of man. The only human family of 
which he knows anything about, then, is a family of 
invisible spirits, which he calls the essential part. In 
beholding the congregation before me, I either see 
human beings or I do not. According to the position 
of my opponent I do not see human beings and never 
have seen any, and no one else ever has, for they are 
invisible. The Scriptures teach that God created 
man of the dust of the ground, after which he 
breathed into the man he had thus created the breath 
of life, and the man who was created of the dust be- 
come a living soul. He was called man before he re- 
ceived the breath of life. In contradiction to this 
Brother Hughes says the body is not the essential part 
at all. In reference to the creation of man it is 
declared, "male and female created he them." Is 
there distinction of sex in the spirit world? We are 
all born of Adam, but if his position is correct we are 
not to consider that we are born of Adam as human 
bodies, for the multiplication would then result in the 
production of a family of spirits. Paul says the first 
man is of the earth earthy. You find a man before 
the first man, if you can. 

"God is the Father of the whole human family," he 
says, "not because he created them, but because he 
created their spirits in his own image." Where does 
the Bible say that he created the spirits only in his 
image ? The position that God is the Father of the 
whole human family, and that he is the Father of 
spirits only, shows that he believes the human family 
to consist of a family of spirits only. I have a ques- 



SLR. DAILY'S SECOND REPLY. 33 

tion for him right here . Does sin attach to the spirits 
of mankind or to the flesh ? If he answers this I have 
something more on that point. When I taught school 
I always tried to keep my pupils expecting something 
new. In this way I kept up an interest in the work. 
Do you believe that God punishes all for the sins 
they commit as much as they deserve to be punished ? 
If so, how does he punish them ? In their physical, 
bodily nature, by the infliction of pain and suffering, 
or in their conscience, or both ? 

In reference to the love of God, he argues that God 
loved the whole world and sent his Son to save the 
world. The passage on which he attempts to base this 
argument teaches that whosoever believeth in Jesus 
should not perish but have everlasting life. This 
shows that salvation is restricted and not universal ! 
If universalism had been true, Jesus would have said 
that all the human family would finally believe in him 
and be saved. To prove by this passage that all will 
be saved, brother Hughes must prove that all will be- 
lieve on Christ. This he cannot do ! I deny that the 
term "whole world" in this text means every individ- 
ual, every human being. I also deny that all will be- 
lieve on Christ, and de?nand the proof ! 

As to the declaration of Scripture that God is a con- 
suming fire, and that vengeance belongs to him, I will 
say that as this applies to those who are born again, 
it is to be considered as purifying the gold \>\ destroy- 
ing the dross, but in the case of the wicked, there is 
no gold to be purified for ' l they are together become 
unprofitable" (Rom. iii. 12.), their "end is to be 
burned" (Heb. vi. S.j, and they are to be sent away 



34 FIRST PROPOSITION, 

"into everlasting fire" (Matt. xxv. 41.). 

The case of Jacob and Esau, my opponent thinks, 
refers to the Jews and Edomites, and not to .the elec- 
tion of individuals. But the apostle uses this to 
illustrate the doctrine of election — the election of indi- 
viduals. "Neither because they are the children of 
Abraham, are they all children (children of God): but 
in Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, they which 
are the children of the flesh, these are not the chil- 
ren of God: but the children of the promise are count- 
ed for the seed." The inspired writer then proceeds 
to illustrate this election of the children'of promise by 
speaking of the choice made of Isaac and not Ishmael. 
and of Jacob and not Esau. That these children of 
promise are individuals and not nations, is shown by 
Paul's statement in Gal. iv. 28: "Now we, brethren, as 
Isaac was, are the children of promise." Brother 
Hughes says, "God hates no one in time. He will 
hate no one in eternity." God himself said, "Jacob 
have I loved, but Esau have I hated." Whom shall 
we believe? Brother Hughes, or God? As God 
loved Jacob, but hated Esau, he does not love all alike, 
so the argument, based upon the mere assumption that 
he does, falls ! 

He says he did not assume that God is the Father of 
all because he created them, but that he proved that he 
is the Father of all because he created them in his 
image. That makes him their Creator, and not their 
Father 1 So I still say he merely assumed it without 
proof I If all are his children because he created them 
in his image, then there could be no necessity for sin- 
ners to be born again. I repeat there is absolutely no 



kR. DAILV'S SECOND R^PLY. 35 

reason to be shown why men should be born again on 
the supposition that all are already his children. 
Resemblance does not make us his children. If my 
child resembles me his resemblance may be an evidence 
of that relation, but it is birth that makes the relation. 

The statement that Adam was a son of God is no 
proof that all men are his children. The Jews were 
all the children of Abraham by natural relationship, 
but only those who were born of God, or born again, 
who were therefore of the faith of Abraham, were 
considered the children of God, and the promised 
spiritual seed of Abraham. "He is not a Jew which 
is one outwardly, neither is that circumcision which 
is outward in the flesh, but he is a Jew which is one 
inwardly." These inward Jews were the children of 
God. Those who were Jews outwardly were not. 
Jesus would have told the Jews they were all the chil- 
dren of God, together with all men, if that had been 
true. The fact that he did not, together with the 
fact that such a statement is not found in all the word 
of God, is positive proof of the falsity of Brother 
Hughes' position. 

He says the elect are not saved now, and asks what 
proof there is that they ever will be. This is but a 
futile attempt to dodge my reply to his argument based 
upon the fact that God is love and the assumption that 
he loves all alike. He argued that God is love, there- 
fore all will be holy and happy. I argued from the 
same premise that God is love, therefore all men are 
now holy and happy. The elect are saved in this life, 
for "He hath saved us and called us, not according 
to our works, but according to his own purpose 



$6 PIRST*PROi>OStTlON . 

and grace which was given us in Christ before the 
world began." Brother Hughes believes that all will 
be saved when punished enough, some not being saved 
for ages after others, making the salvation of all to 
come through punishment inflicted upon them. 

Paul's statement to the people of Athens, "We are 
his offspring," implies, if taken literally, that he is 
merely our Creator ; if taken spiritually, it implies 
that we are born again, and therefore his children. 
The latter implication would embrace only such as are 
born of God, including the apostle himself. But he 
calls upon all men everywhere to repent. Suppose he 
does; will all repent? Will all men ever repent, turn 
from their sins, and seek God? Where is the proof 
that they will ? 

He argued there would be universal subjection 
through Christ, basing his argument upon the state- 
ment that Christ had tasted death for every man. I 
ask him to tell us what effect Christ's tasting of death 
for men had. How does Christ save men ? What 
did he do to save them ? From what does he save 
them ? He made the sweeping assertion that Christ 
is the Saviour of all men. I ask him to tell us how 
Christ saves, and from what he saves. Does he save 
from any punishment due to their sins ? Does he save 
them from sinning in this life ? Does he save them 
from death or hell ? If he answers I will give some 
further attention to that argument. 

I had not finished my second negative argument 
when my time expired. I quoted Matt. xxv. 41, 
"Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, 
Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, pre- 



MR. DAILY'S SECOND REPLY. 37 

pared for the devil and his angels." Why is the term 
everlasting fire used here if it does not mean everlast- 
ing fire? It is said in the 32d verse, that before him 
shall all nations be gathered, at the time of his coming 
in his glory and all his holy angels with him. All 
nations have never yet been gathered before him. All 
nations can never be gathered before him till the 
nations that are to come are born, and all the nations 
that have been are resurrected from the dead. At 
that time he will say, "Depart" &c. In the 46th 
verse it is said, "And these shall go away into ever- 
lasting punishment." 

I now invite the candid attention of the audience 
and my opponent to the following summary of this 
argument : 

1 . The proposition implies that there is no everlast- 
ing fire, that there is no danger of being cast into 
everlasting fire, that none shall ever depart into ever- 
lasting fire, and that none shall ever go away into 
everlasting punishment. 

2. This proposition cannot be true if the Saviour's 
language is true. But the Saviour's language is true. 

3. Therefore this proposition is not true, and so 
all the human family will not be finally brought to 
enjoy a state of endless holiness and happiness. 

Negative Argument III. My third argument against 
this proposition is that my opponent, in denying the 
resurrection of the natural bodies of the human family, 
occupies positions that are contradictory. It is not 
my purpose to introduce a discussion of the second 
proposition at this time, but merely to offer as an argu 
ment against this proposition that it cannot be true if 



38 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

a denial of the resurrection of the natural bodies of 
the human family can be sustained. 

The persons or natural bodies I now see before me, 
are members of the human family. Your bodies form 
an essential, component part of your being. If these 
bodies return to the dust, and are never raised, then 
an essential, component part of the members of the 
human family will never be brought to enjoy a state 
of endless holiness and happiness. This is a dilemma 
from which I think my opponent cannot escape. It 
remains to be seen if he can. 

Negative Argument IV. My fourth argument is 
that the doctrine that all the human family shall be 
brought to enjoy a state of endless holiness and happi- 
ness, meets the approval of the wicked heart of man ; 
that it finds an approving response in such a heart, and 
is understood, loved and cherished by wicked people. 
Understand I am not asserting that all who under- 
stand, love and cherish this doctrine, are wicked, but 
only that the wicked do understand ', love and cherish it , 
as a doctrine suited to the gratification of their natural 
desire for sin and wickedness. The unchanged heart is 
"deceitful above all things and desperately wicked," 
and out of it "proceed evil thoughts, murders, adul- 
teries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies." 
Such a heart must be entirely at variance with God's 
pure law, and wholly opposed to the divine principles 
of the gospel, for it can love that only which is assim- 
ilated to its likeness. The gospel presents the require 
ment of self-denial, renunciation of sin. Hence the 
wicked heart, the one that is in love with wickedness, 
hates the gospel. It is for this reason that wicked 



MR. DAILY'S SECOND REPLY. 39 

people have despised those who preached the gospel 
and have put them to death. This proposition allows 
all that a wicked heart can love or desire without any 
hazard of a final consequence! Then there can be no rea- 
son for the wickedest heart on earth to despise the doc- 
trine of this proposition and those who advocate it . 
L,et a wicked person be pursuaded that this doctrine is 
true, and he will love it and be happy in the belief of it , 
because it allows him to continue in the love of sin and 
the delightful practice of it with the full confidence and 
belief that he will be finally brought to enjoy a state of 
endless holiness and happiness! 

1 . Any system of religious doctrine that can be 
understood, loved and cherished by a wicked heart, 
must be false in its character and displeasing to God. 

2 . The system of doctrine expressed by this propo- 
sition is understood, loved and cherished by some 
hearts that are wicked. 

3. Therefore, the system of doctrine expressed by 
this proposition is false in its character and displeasing 
to God. 

Negative Argument V My fifth negative argument 
is based upon the fact that the Universalist church as 
an organization is of modern origin. 

Belcher, in his "Religious Denominations," says, 
"The denomination of which we are now writing 
(Universalists), seems to have had its origin in Eng- 
land somewhat more than a century ago, when the 
Rev. John Kelly collected a congregation in the city 
of London. < As held by Mr. Kelly and his people, it 
was combined with a modified form of the doctrine of 
the Trinity, and it is probable that many individuals 



40 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

among Trinitarians even at present hold to it." "The 
doctrines of Universalism were preached in this coun- 
try quite as soon as they became prevalent in Eng- 
land." "The chief agent in its extension was the 
Rev. John Murray, who emigrated from England in 
1770. He was a follower of Mr. Kelly, already men- 
tioned, and on his arrival in this country zealously 
preached these views in N. J., Perm., N. Y., R.I., 
and Mass. As he collected his followers together, and 
organized them into societies, he may be regarded as 
the founder of the body." 

In a work entitled "A Brief Statement of Universa- 
list belief," by H. R. Nye, a noted Universalist , an 
admission is made in the following language : "There 
is a distinct, separate body of Christian believers called 
the Universalist church. It was organized a little 
more than a hundred years ago." "The founders of 
this church were not Atheists." Page 10. No such 
an organization as the Universalist church was known 
one hundred and fifty years ago, or prior to that time. 

If Christ and his apostles had taught the doctrine 
of this proposition, then the church founded by them 
would have been a Universalist church ; and as he 
declares the gates of hell should not prevail against 
his church, it would have existed through all ages to 
the present. But no such a church is known to the 
writers of history prior to the time of Murray. 

God gave us the Bible as a plain book to instruct us 
in the religious life and the true doctrine of salvation. 
It is intended to be a divine guide to the people in all 
ages. Great scholars have studied and written about 
it. Many have loved it so devotedly as to die for it. 



MR. DAILY'S SECOND REPLY. 4 1 

Yet if the doctrine of this proposition be true, not one 
of them ever understood its teaching until modern 
Universalists arose up to expound it. The true church 
did not exist from the days of Christ till the days of 
Murray. How very remarkable this is! 

1. If the doctrine of this proposition be true, that 
all the human family will be finally brought to enjoy a 
state of endless holiness and happiness, then the 
Universalist church was founded by Christ in the be- 
ginning of the Christian era. 

2 . But the Universalist church was not founded 
till the latter part of the 18th century, and was never 
known to history till that time. 

3. Therefore, this proposition, w T hich states a dis- 
tinctive doctrine of that church, is not the doctrine of 
the New Testament. 

Negative Argument VI. My next argument against 
the proposition is that all do not become the servants 
of God in this life, and do not have their fruit unto 
holiness, and are therefore not made free from sin and 
do not enjoy in the end everlasting life. Rom. vi: 
22: "But now being made free from sin, and become 
servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness and 
the end everlasting life." I argue from this text that 
all who will ever have their fruit unto holiness are 
made free from sin here and are brought to love the 
service of God. Many die in love with sin, delight- 
ing in the practice of it and despising the service of 
God as lcngas they live here. As such are not made 
free from sin here, the}' do not have their fruit unto 
holiness and the end everlasting life. As many die 
without being made free from sin, and as there is not 



42 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

the slightest proof any moral change will ever be 
effected in such after death, it follows that they will 
never have their fruit unto holiness and the end ever- 
lasting life. 

Negative Argument VII. My seventh negative argu- 
ment is that no one can ever see or enter into the king- 
dom of God without being born again, and that as the 
essential evidences of that new birth are faith and love, 
we know that many die and go into eternity without 
being born again. 

John iii. 3 : ' 'Except a man be born again he cannot see 
the kingdom of God." 

John iii. 5 : "Except a man be born of water and of the 
Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. " 

The creation of man in the image of God (not his 
spirit merely, but the man himself) constituted him 
the creature of God. Being born again constitutes 
him a child. Thus God's people are declared to be 
''born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor 
of the will of man, but of God." 

I John v. 1 : "Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ 
is born of God : and every one that loveth him that begat, 
loveth him also that is begotten of him. " 

It is God that begets, which constitutes him the 
Father of those that are begotten or born of him. 

t John iv. 7: "Beloved, let us love one auother, for love 
is of God : and every one that loveth is born of God, and 
knoweth God." 

All men do not have faith. All men do not love 
God, for it is said, "He that loveth not knoweth not 
God." Since all do not have faith in God or love for 
him, all are not born again. Those who are not born 
again and die in that state, cannot see the kingdom of 



MR, HUGHES THIRD SPEECH. 43 

God or enter into it. , Therefore all will not be finally 
brought to enjoy a state of endless holiness and 
happiness. — {Time expired. 

MR. HUGHES' THIRD SPEECH. 

Gentlemen Moderators Ladies and Gentle- 
men: — I would like it to be understood by the audi- 
ence right here, that I have not said in this discussion 
that man is not body. What I did say, was that the 
spiritual man is the part that was made in the image 
of God, and that the body was not. To that I stand ; 
and so a great deal my respected brother said on that 
subject was shooting wide of the mark. He quoted 
the passage ; "The first man is of the earth earthy." 
That was said of man as he is now ; but as ' ' God is 
the Father of spirits,' 1 ' it is the "inward man," that is 
the child of God. St. Paul says ; "There is an out- 
ward man and an inward man," II Cor. iv. 16; and 
the question is which of the two is made in the divine 
image? Now just as sure as "God is the Father of 
spirits," and the "God of the spirits of all flesh," so 
sure is it, that he is the Father of all mankind. And 
so it is said, "But to us there is but the one God the 
Father. ' ' There could not be a clearer statement of 
the Fatherhood of God, as a universal truth. 

He wants to know if I believe the souls of men are 
sinful. Yes I do. I do not believe the flesh is sinful ; 
though I believe that much that prompts to sin arises 
from the animal nature. But it is not sin till the 
rational nature consents to it, and then it is sin. 



44 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

He inquires if I believe that God punishes every 
man as much as his sin deserves. I most certainly do. 
inasmuch as I believe that men will be rewarded ac- 
cording to their works. Does he believe God will 
punish the elect, or Jesus in the place of the elect as 
much as their sins deserve? Will he answer? If it 
be a fact that man's sins, or the elect's sins were trans- 
ferred or put on Christ, does not that make him the 
real sinner? 

If hating does not mean hating what does it mean ? 
When the words hate and anger are applied to God 
they cannot mean the same as when applied to man. 
God cannot be subject to human passions, as he is an 
unchangeably perfect being. In Rom. i. 18, we are 
told that "the wrath of God is revealed from heaven 
against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men." 
And Dr. Adam Clark says, "The wrath of God does 
not mean any uneasy passion in the divine being, but 
the displeasure of his righteousness." God in his 
loving nature is ever opposed to sin, and his anger is 
directed towards it to blot it out and destroy it, and 
he cannot consistently perpetuate it to all eternity. 

Mr. Daily says a Jew may be one in two senses ; 
that he who is one outwardly may not be one inwardly. 
That is what I have been trying to tell you, my friends. 
But he says resemblance does not make children . But 
I say that resemblance in character does make children 
in a characteristic sense. So Jesus says, "Love your 
enemies, do good to them that hate you, that ye may 
be the children of your Father which is in heaven . ' » 
To do this makes one the child of the heavenly Fath- 
er, not in relationship, but in character. 



MR, HUGHES' THIRD SPEECH. 4g 

He wants to know if I believe that all men will 
repent. I most certainly do, as one of the necessary 
steps to the final salvation of all. But again he asks 
what good Christ's death does for man. I answer : It 
manifests and commends God's love to mankind : 

"In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because 
that God sent his only begotten Son into the world that we 
might live through him. ' ' I John iv. 9. 

"God commendeth his love toward us in that while we 
were yet sinners Christ died for us. " Rom. v. 8. 

It brings life and immortality to light. II Tim. i. 10. 
And it appeals to men to be reconciled to God. II Cor. 
v. 20, 21. It does not save man from death, for all 
must die ; nor absolutely from sinning here, for all 
men sin and come short of the glory of God. But its 
work is begun here. Many are reconciled to God, 
and the good work begun will finally be consummated: 
for as Christ was lifted upon the cross, "he will draw 
all men unto him," John xii. 32. 

He quotes Matt. xxv. 41, "Depart ye cursed into 
everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels." 
Undoubtedly he will have use for this passage on his 
proposition, so I pass it here with a single remark, I 
do not understand the word everlasting here to mean 
without end, and at the proper time will show it. He 
makes no argument on the text, and he is not to rely 
on the mere sound of the word. He is here to prove 
his positions, and not for mere assumption. 

I come now to something I wish was not in this 
friendly discussion, "that Universalism finds its lodge- 
ment in sinful hearts." I deny that Universalism 
contributes to sin in an}' way. And I want to ask 
him a question right here, and that is, Does he believe 



46 pirs¥ proposition. 

1 n the doctrine of total depravity ? If so, please ex- 
plain how Universalism can make the man who is 
totally depraved any worse ? Would the preaching of 
God's universal love, and that Christ died for him, 
make him any more than totally depraved ? 

"But the Universalist church is a modern church, 
not more than one hundred and fifty years old." Well, 
I have never been egotistical enough to believe that 
the church to which I belong is all the church there is. 
There are good men in all churches, and there has 
never been a time since Christ's church was founded, 
that there were not Christians in the world. There 
were Universalists in the ancient times. The first 
Christian school was at Alexandria. Clement and 
Origen were among its first and most noted teachers, 
and both were believers in the final salvation of all 
mankind. That goes back to a very early day. Be- 
sides there was Theodore of Mopsuestia, Gregory of 
Nyssa, and others down to the time of St. Augustine, 
who said there were "very many" who believed in 
Universalism in his day. So it is no new doctrine. 

I want to ask my brother if it is true that his church 
will expel a member for believing that Christ died for 
Jail men, and so for believing that all will be saved ? 
And if it be true that Christ did not die for all men, 
is it then possible for any of those for whom he did not 
die to be saved ? Of course I expect him to answer in 
the negative. For they are not of the elect and were 
doomed to damnation before they were born ; and who 
then is to blame for their fate foreordained before the 
world was ? Has Universalism contributed in any 
way to it ? I call attention to the fact that brother 



MR. HUGHES* THXTd SPEECH, 47 

Daily prosecutes this discussion on the grounds of 
Arminianism, just as though men have some agency 
in their salvation, which he does not believe, if I un- 
derstand his creed rightly. 

God, he says, gave us the Bible, a plain book, and 
no one understands it as do modern Universalists. 
But how man}^ understand it as he does ? Does not 
the great majority of Christians understand the Bible 
to teach that Christ died for all ? And that God sent 
his Son to save all ? Besides there are a great many 
in the so called Orthodox churches, that believe that 
there will be an opportunity for salvation in the future 
life, as all do not have a fair chance here. This I 
very well know ; but what is the difference so far as 
my friend is concerned ? This much, it shows that 
there is a growing sentiment in the Christian church 
in the belief that God will deal fairly with his children i 
and that Christ's doctrine goes over into the future 
state, and is coming nearer to the Universalist posi- 
tion. I come now to my Fifth Argument. 

V. Mission and Ministry of Christ. 

In proof of nry position, I read the following pas. 
sages of Scripture: 

''For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the 
world, but that the world through him might be saved." 
Jno. iii. 17. 

"We have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son 
to be the Saviour of the world. " I Jno. iv. 14. 

"(•""or the Son of man is come to seek and save that which 
was lost. " Luke xix. 10. 

"This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation, 
that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners of 
whom I am chief." I Tim. i. 15. 



4$ first proposition. 

i. The purpose of Christ's Mission and Ministry 
is the salvation of the world. It is not to be confined 
to the elect or any special class. It is to save the sin- 
ful, and "all have sinned and come short of the glory 
of God." Rom. iii. 23. The question turns in this 
discussion not on Christ's ability to save, but on how 
many he came to save : for if: he came to save all, then 
my friend must admit all will be saved ! Who believes 
that? Why, my friend's whole church believes that. 
And as these texts prove the universality of Christ's 
mission, so all will be saved. 

2. To this end Christ is Lord of mankind, "For 
to this end Christ both died and rose again that he 
might be Lord both of the dead and the living." Rom. 
xiv. 9. The dead and the living include all in this 
world and all in the spirit world. To be Lord over all 
is to have rule and dominion over all. And so Jesus 
claims that, "All authority was given into his hands 
in heaven and earth." Matt, xxviii. 18. And St. 
Paul affirms that, "he shall change our vile body and 
fashion it like unto his glorious body, according to 
the working whereby he is able to subdue all things 
unto himself." Phil. iii. 21. And we have not only 
affirmed here universal dominion and authority, but 
also the ability of Jesus to subdue all things unto him- 
self, which seems conclusive and final. 

3. For the full accomplishment of his mission, 
Christ's ministry is addressed to men both here and 
in the spirit world. 

"For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for 
the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death 
in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit, by which also he 



Mk, HUGHES' THIRD SPEECH. 49 

went and preached unto the spirits in prison ; which sometime 
were disobedient, when the long suffering of God waited in 
the days of Noah. " I Peter iii. 18-20. 

"Who shall give account to him that is ready to judge the 
quick and the dead. For, for this cause was the gospel 
preached to them that are dead, that they might be judged 
according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in 
the Spirit." I Peter iv. 5, 6. 

1 . The reason of Christ's ministry to the dead is that 
"they might live according to God in the Spirit,' ' which 
is salvation. Christ's judgment is a universal one ; 
he judges by his word, and this necessitates a univer- 
sal proclamation of the gospel. For men are not 
judged by a gospel they never heard. He cannot 
judge those who have died without a knowledge of him 
Iryhis word if they never heard that word. It would 
be unjust to hold men responsible for principles of 
which the}- have no knowledge. 

2 . Christ will accomplish the purpose of his mission 
and ministry. 

"And many more believed because of his own word; and 
said unto the woman, Mow we believe, not because of thy 
saying : for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this 
is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world. ' ' John iv. 41-42 

Now that was the conclusion of those who heard 
Christ's own preaching. They had first believed on 
the report given by the woman of Samaria, but now 
they believed because the) 7 had heard him for them- 
selves ; that he was "the Christ, the Saviour of the 
world. 

I now advance to my sixth argument : 

VI. Christ will Draw all Men to Himself. 

"Now is the judgment of this world ; now shall the prince 
of this world be cast out. And I, if I be lifted up from the 



go FIRST PROPOSITION, 

earth, will draw all men unto me. ' ' John xii. 41, 32. 

i. The phrase "all men" is to be taken in its full 
literal sense. There is no reason in the text or context 
for its limitation. By being "lifted up" he refers to 
his death upon the cross, and as "he tasted death for 
every man," so he will draw all men nnto him, for he 
died for all. 

2. By drawing all men, he means teaching them, 
influencing them by his word and Spirit. This is 
evident from his words in John vi. 44. 45 : 

"No man can come to me, except the Father which hath 
sent me draw him, and I will raise him up at the last day. 
It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of 
God. Every man, therefore, that hath heard and learned of 
the Father, cometh unto me. ' ' 

Now it is the teaching of Jesus which draws men to 
him ; and his truth is the very power of God, and 
omnipotent, the time will come when all men will be 
drawn to him. 

VII. All men will come to Christ. 

"All that the Father giveth me shall come to me ; and he 
that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. For I came 
down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of 
him that sent me, and this is the will of the Father that 
hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me, I should 
lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day." 
John vi. 37-39. 

1 . To come to Christ is to believe in him and 
become his disciple. It is to so come to him as not 
to be cast out. 

2. All for whom Christ died, and all whom he 
came to save, are given to him. For he came down 
from heaven to do his Father's will : and "God will 
have all men to be saved, and come unto the knowl- 



MR, HUGHES THIRD SPEECH. 51 

edge of the truth." I Tim. ii. 4. "The Father lov- 
eth the Son, and hath given all things into his hands. 
John iii. 36. So the sure conclusion is that all will 
come to Christ. 

VIII. Universal Reconciliation to God. 

My eighth argument is based on those passages 
which teach a universal reconciliation to God. 

"For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus 
judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead; and that 
he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth 
live unto themselves, but into him that died for them, and 
rose again. Wherefore henceforth know we no man after 
the flesh; yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, 
yet now henceforth know we him no more. Therefore if any 
man be in Christ, he is a new creature; old things have pass- 
ed away, and behold all things have become new. And all 
things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus 
Christ, and hath given unto us the ministry of reconciliation: 
To wit, that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto him 
self, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath com- 
mitted unto us the word of reconciliation." II Cor. v. 14-19. 

"For it pleased the Father that in him should all fullness 
dwell ; and having made peace through the blood of his cross, 
by him to reconcile all things to himself ; by him, I say, 
whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven." Col- 
i. 19, 20. 

1 . The word world and the phrase all things in 
earth and heaven, comprise all mankind, all for whom 
Christ died, and "he died for all" universally, for "all 
were dead." Will my friend deny the moral depravity 
of all mankind? If not, then he consents to the 
moral death of all, and so to the death of Christ for 
all. 

2. All the reconciled are saved, saved by "his 
ministry" arid "word of reconciliation." They are 



£2 FIRST PROPOSITION^ 

"in Christ," "new creatures," and "live unto Christ." 
3. This reconciliation will be finally as universal 
as is the phrases "the world" and "all things in 
heaven and in earth." — [Time Expired. 

MR. DAISY'S THIRD REPLY. 



Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and Gentle- 
men: — We are getting along very nicely with our dis- 
cussion. I predict that wq shall continue to get along 
nicely, and that this will be a very agreeable debate. 

It becomes my duty to give attention tc the speech 
to which you have so patiently listened. It can 
hardly be expected of me, of course, to give particu- 
lar attention to everything that my brother says, but 
I shall give attention to all that he offers in the way 
of argument that is pertinent to the question we are 
discussing. He has made the argument that God so 
loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, 
and that the purpose of sending Christ into the world 
was that the world, all the human family, should be 
saved. I want you to observe, however, that the 
Saviour declares in the text, that whosoever believeth 
in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 
But he says all the human family will ultimately be- 
lieve. Then why did not Christ say so ? If that had 
been true he would have said, God so loved the world 
that he gave his only begotten Son, that all the hu- 
man family should ultimately believe, and not perish 
but have everlasting life ! My brother's position that 



MR. DAILY'S THIRD REPLY. 53 

all will finally believe is a mere assumption of his 
without the shadow of proof. He accuses me of 
prosecuting this debate on the grounds of Arminian- 
ism. I deny the charge. I have not advocated a 
single Arminian principle. He also says all will re- 
pent as one of the necessary steps to the final salvation 
of all. This is another assumption of his without 
proof. 

I now want to notice the term "world," as given in 
the passage alluded to. Our brother puts a great deal 
of stress on that, and grew very warm in arguing that 
the term world necessarily signifies the whole race of 
mankind. I read this in the word of God, "All the 
ends of the world shall remember and turn unto the 
Lord, and all the kindreds of the nations shall wor- 
ship before thee." Ps. xxii. 27. 'All the kindreds of 
the nations' ' shows that the term world is used in a 
representative sense. "All the ends of the world shall 
remember and turn unto the Lord, and all the kin- 
dreds of the nations shall worship before him , ' ' yet 
I read in God's word also where it is said that "the 
wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the na- 
tions that forget God." Ps. ix. 17. I read also in 
Rev. xiii. 3, where it is declared that "all the world 
wondered after the beast." I quote these passages to 
show that the term "world" is of ten used not to in- 
clude all the members of the human family, all the 
human race, but is used to embrace all the nations of 
the earth representatively. So when the Saviour said 
"God so loved the world" he taught that God not 
only loved his people among the Jewish nation, but 
all of his people of all nations, Gentiles as well as 



54 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

Jews. Our Saviour said in John xvii. 9, "I pray not 
for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; 
for they are thine." Will my opponent say that 
Christ meant all the human family by the use of the 
term "world?" 

Now let ur come to some of his other points. He 
says man is a child of God because he was created in 
his image, and insists that it is the spirit of man only 
that is thus created. The Bible says God made man 
in his image ; brother Hughe;-; says he made only the 
spirit of man in his image ! If that were true, it 
would render the spirit a creatu? ; of God and not his 
child. But that is not only an assumption without 
proof, it is a positive contradiction of Bible teaching. 
»'S.o God created man in in his own image, i;i the im- 
age of God created he him; male and female ciealed he 
them." This shows that it was man in his lodily 
person that was created in the image of God as male 
and female, and not the man s spirit merely. In his 
created state of primeval innocency, as he came from 
the hand of his Maker, he was good and very good, 
being sinless, and having a pure conscience, and hav- 
ing dominion over the inferior works of creation ; but 
when he sinned he lost that divine image, and became 
a rebel against God. 

Brother Hughes says that the spirit, and not the 
flesh, is sinful. I ask him now if punishment is in- 
flicted on the body for the sins of the spirit. If so, 
why? How can a sinful spirit become pure and holy 
by punisment inflicted on the body? He says all sin- 
ners are punished as much as they deserve to be for 
the sins they commit. Them is there any such thing 



MR. DAILY S THIRD REPLY. 55 

as forgiveness? Does the Iyord ever forgive any sins, 
if all sinners are punished as much as they deserve ? 
Let me illustrate : Suppose this brother ows me ten 
dollars; and I go to him and say, "You owe me ten 
dollars; I forgive you the debt, but you must pay me 
every cent of it . " Would there be any f orgivenss in 
that? Suppose God should say, I intend to forgive 
you, but I shall punish you for every sin. My bro- 
ther cannot show that there is any forgiveness on 
such hypothesis. I take the position that God does 
not have mercy on any sinner of Adam's race accor- 
ding to his position, for to be merciful is to treat one 
better than he deserves. More about that later. 

The first man is of the earth earthy. He says that 
applies to man as he is now. But he is trying to 
prove that the whole human family is to be finally 
holy and happy. I suppose he must not mean the 
human family as it is now ! It is the body that is of 
the earth earthy, which is the man that God created 
of the dust of the earth. Was he not called man be- 
fore God breathed into him the breath of life ? I 
want him to come to that question. I may be a little 
hard to satisfy, but I feel that this congregation is 
not satisfied with his evasions on that point. Was 
not man created male and female ? Are we not born 
of that man as his descendante ? As such, are we not 
of the earth earthy ? As the human family, the off- 
spring of Adam, are we not fleshly beings, born of 
the flesh ? And if that which is created of the dust 
and born of the flesh never goes to heaven, how is it 
that the whole human family will be finally holy and 
happy ? 



5 6 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

With reference to God's loving Jacob and hating 
Esau, the position my brother has taken is that hat- 
ing does not mean hating as applied to God. Then 
how do we know that loving means loving as applied 
to him. This is only an attempt to avade the force of 
my proof that his position that God loves all alike is 
false. That text proves that God does not love all 
alike, and there is no evading it. So his argument 
based on the love of God falls. He says God's nature 
is ever opposed to sin, and his anger is ever directed 
toward it to blot it out and destroy it. How does he 
do this ? By punishment inflicted on sinners ? That 
cannot be, for punishment will never render them in- 
nocent. 

A Jew who is one inwardly, is a child of God' hav- 
ing experienced the new birth or circumcision of the 
heart; while one who is merely a Jew outwardly, is 
not a child of God. If all were children of God by 
natural creation, then to be a Jew outwardly would 
have been sufficient, and there would have been no 
necessity of any ever being born again or circumcised 
in heart. 

How does the death of Christ commend the love of 
God to mankind from the standpoint of Univer- 
salism? He did not save any from sinning, or from 
punishment, or from death, or from hell, or from any- 
thing else, according to the theory of my opponent ! 
The death of Christ amounts to nothing in his sys- 
tem ! He had as well not have died, if Universalism 
be true ! He says, "Many are reconciled to God, and 
the good work begun will finally be consumated." If 
all are punished in order to their reconciliation, what 



MR. DAILY S THIRD REPLY. 57 

does^the death of Christ, or any other work of Christ's 
have to do with their reconciliation? Not one thing! 

Referring to Matt. xxv. 41, where it is said some 
shall depart into everlasting fire, he says everlasting 
does not mean everlasting. (Mr. Hughes — "I did 
not express it that way.") I expected him to say 
that. Everlasting does not mean without end ! If it 
doesn't, what does it mean? Could they depart into 
everlasting fire, if there is no everlasting fire? 

He expresses regret that I intimated, as he says, 
that Universalism contributes to sin. That is not 
what I said. It is a misunderstanding, I think. I 
did not say that all the people who believe in Univer- 
salism are bad people. I did say that the wickedest 
man in the world could believe in Universalism and 
love it, because it allows him to live in sin, and prom- 
ises that if he dies in the love and practice of sin, he 
will be just as happy in the end as the best man that 
ever lived. I have known wicked men to say they 
believed the doctrine of Universalism, and the manner 
in which they said it proved to me they loved it. My 
argument was that a wicked man cannot love the true 
gospel, cannot know the things of the Spirit of God, 
because they are spiritually discerned. I Cor. ii. 14. 
This is proof that the doctrine is false. 

In referring to my argument founded on the fact that 
the Universalist church is of modern origin, he says 
there has never been a time since Christ's church was 
founded that there were not christians in the world, 
and that there were Universalists in ancient times. 
That does not touch the argument. He does not deny 
that his church was founded not more than one hun- 



58 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

dred and fifty years ago, and he does not attempt to 
find a Universalist church in history prior that time. 
That there were some who held to some form of Uni- 
versalism is not denied. Nearly every error has had 
advocates in ages past. My argument was that 
if Christ and his disciples had taught Universalism, 
then the church founded by them would have been a 
Universalist church ; and as Christ said the gates of 
hell should not prevail against his church, it would 
have continued as a Universalist church. But no such 
a denomination ever existed prior to one hundred 
and fifty years ago. Therefore Christ and his 
disciples did not teach Universalism. 

Whether or not my church would expel a member 
for believing Christ died for all, has nothing to do 
with this question. I am not here to say what my 
church would fellowship or not fellowship. 

He tries to base an argument on the "Mission and 
Ministry of Christ," and quotes, "God sent not his 
Son into the world to condemn the world, but that 
the world through him might be saved," and, "The 
Son of man is come to seek and to save that which 
was lost," &c. These passages do not teach that he 
was sent to save all the people that are in the world, 
or all the people that are lost. But I ask him again 
how Christ saves sinners, what he does to save them, 
and what he saves them from. He says he does not 
save them from sinning, or from punishment, or from 
dying, or from hell. Does he save them at all? If 
so, how? We want to know what the death of Christ, 
or his Mission or Ministry, has to do with the salvation 
of any sinner, according to Universalism! If all are 



MR. DAILY'S THIRD RKPI.Y. 59 

the children of God by creation, and he punishes alt 
for their sins as much as they deserve, and then makes 
them holy and happy because he has punished them 
enough, would not all have been saved if Christ had 
never come ? He cannot show what the Mission and 
Ministry of Christ has to do in the salvation of any 
according to his theory. So all his arguments on that 
go for nothing. 

He argues that Christ is Lord of all mankind, and 
quoted, "For to this end Christ both died and rose 
again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and 
the living." What is it that dies when the spirit 
leaves the body? If it is the body that dies, then he 
is Lord of the body, and will bring it forth from 
death. When Paul says, "He shall change our vile 
body and fashion it like unto his glorious body," he 
proved he was Lord of the body that is dead after the 
spirit leaves it, but that is no proof that all bodies 
will be so fashioned. 

He argues that Christ's ministry is addressed to 
men in the spirit world as well as here, and quotes 
I Peter iii. 9: "By which also he went and preached 
to the spirits in prison . ' ' When was that ? In the 
days of Noah. He assumes that "the spirits in pris- 
on" are the spirits of the dead while in the spirit 
world. This is the way Universalism builds its argu 
merits, by assumptions. He then goes to I Peter iv. 
5, 6: "Who shall give account to him that is ready to 
judge the quick and the dead. For, for this cause 
was the gospel preached to them that are dead," &c. 
Not to them that were dead, but to them that are 
dead. This is another job of bolstering up. He will 



60 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

have a good deal of that to do before he gets through 
with this discussion. 

In attempting to prove that all the human family 
will be brought to Christ, he quotes, "And I, if I be 
lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me." 
The term "men" in this text is not in the origi- 
nal, and it is therefore italicised in the New Testa- 
ment to show that it is supplied. The explanation of 
this is found in John iii. 14 : "And as Moses lifted up 
the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of 
man be lifted up, that whosoever belie veth in him 
should not perish, but have eternal life." He has 
said the sinner must believe, and as some do not believe 
in this world they never will believe, unless there is a 
change in the next world, which can never be shown. 
The fact is, the restriction clearly indicates that some 
will never believe. An explanation is also found in 
Rev. vii. 9, 10 : "And after this I beheld, and, lo, a 
great multitude which no man could number, of all 
nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood 
before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with 
white robes, and palms in their hands." As these 
were of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and 
tongues, all that constitute these classes are not in- 
cluded. This accords with Rev. v. 9 : "And they 
sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take 
the book, and to open the seals thereof : for thou 
wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood 
out of every kindred, and people, and nation." As 
they were redeemed out 0/ every kindred, people and 
nation, there were some that were not redeemed. 
The term "all men" is restricted just as "every man" 



Mr. daily's third reply. 6i 

is in the following passage : "The law and the proph- 
ets were until John ; since that time the kingdom of 
God is preached, and every man presseth into it." 

In regard to the language of Christ: "All that the' 
Father giveth me shall come tome," I will say that 
brother Hughes is a scholar and understands the Eng- 
lish language, and, something more, he knows that 
the number that shall come is restricted by the lan- 
guage to those given by the Father. If all persons 
had been given to Christ, he would not have said, 
"All that the Father giveth me shall come." He 
would have said, "The Father giveth all persons to 
me and they shall come." But Christ also said, 
"Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath 
learned of the Father, cometh unto me." This also 
is restricted. To teach Universalism it should read 
"Every man hears and learns and comes." Does 
every body hear? Jesus said to the unbelieving Jews, 
"Whydoyenot understand my speech? Even be- 
cause ye cannot hear my words." John viii. 43. God 
is the teacher, by his own blessed Spirit, in the hearts 
of his children. He says by the prophet, "I have 
loved thee with an everlasting love ; therefore with 
loving kindness have I drawn thee." 

From Col. i. 19, 20, he reasons that all people will 
be reconciled to Christ. The "all things" in that pas- 
sage must be considered with very important limita- 
tions, or it would be made to include the brute crea- 
tion as well as man. The same form of speech is used 
in reference to the work of John the Baptist, who was 
said to be sent to "restore all things." Matt. xvii. n. 
This is said of him by the prophets, and it received 



6a ftms¥ proposition; 

the sanction df Christ by his quoting it. Yet it lS 
said that some rejected the counsel of God against 
themselves. L,uke vii. 29, 30. 

"If Christ died for all, then were all dead." If 
this means that they were dead morally, then their 
being dead in sins depended upon Christ's dying for 
them. But man was already dead in sins independent 
of the death of Christ. This is conclusive proof that 
such a death is not meant. All he died for were 
dead because he died for them ; that is, his dying as 
their substitute, and bearing their sins in his body on 
the Jtree, stood as their sacrificial offering. "Who 
his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, 
that we, being dead to sins, should live unto right- 
eousness." 

"As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be 
made alive." The apostle then explains : "But every 
man in his own order : Christ the first fruits ; after- 
ward they that are Christ's at his coming." This 
proves that all will not be Christ's at his coming, for 
the language is restrictive, and any one who un- 
derstands the English language knows it. — \Timc 
expired. 

MR. HUGHES' FOURTH SPEECH. 



Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and Gentle- 
men: — We have now listened to brother Daily's third 
speech, and we want to see how much progress he 
has made, or whether he has made even a little inden- 
tation in "brother Hughes' argument" or not. Well, 



MR. HUGHES* FOURftf SPEECH i 63 

when it is said "whosoever believeth in him shall be 
saved," that restricts the meaning of the passage to a 
part of mankind. Not at all. I have not said that 
the unbeliever is saved or that he will be as long as he 
is an unbeliever. All my arguments turn on the po- 
sition that all men will become believers, that Christ 
will draw all men to him by his word and Spirit ; and 
all men will come to him. And the argument here is 
based on the fact that God loved the world and sent 
his Son to be the Saviour of the world. The work is 
consummated just as far as men repent and believe, and 
its final consummation will be when all men "shall bow 
the knee, and confess his name to the glory of God 
the Father." 

But he quotes, "The wicked shall be turned into 
hell and all the nations that forget God." Ps. ix. 17. 
In the revised version the word Slieol is never trans- 
lated hell, as here in our Authorized version. And I 
ask him does that word ever mean a place of endless 
punishment? If so let him prove it, if he can, and 
not rely on mere assumption as he does here. It may 
mean present punishment here, and the presumption 
is that way. In the verse just before, it is said, "The 
Lord is known by the judgment he executeth : the 
wicked is snared in the work of his own hands." God 
cannot be known now b} T a judgment in the far 
future, but he can be by a judgment in which . the 
wicked is snared in the work of his own hands. The 
text favors punishment here, and if so all right, and 
if it means punishment hereafter all right, it cannot 
be endless, for Sheol is to be destroyed, and I ask him 
if that can mean a place of endless punishment ? 



64 first proposition. 

But he wants to know if all the world are the peo- 
ple of God. Whose people are they then ? Whose 
people are you before me ? Are you the devil's people? 
Then you ought to serve him, for he has a right to 
your services ! If then there is a part of mankind 
who are the devil's people, totally depraved, then 
they never can be saved whatever they do, and who 
is to blame for their eternal misery ? 

"Everlasting does not mean everlasting." When 
we come to the next proposition , I will give you some 
proof on that, and I do not propose to take up my 
time on it now. "But if man is not body, then you 
never saw man." God is Spirit and you never saw 
him. And God made man in his own image, and God 
is the "Father of spirits," so man is spirit as well as 
body, and you have never seen all of man as you have 
not seen his spirit. You have seen his body, that is all. 

"No need of being born again if man is a child of 
God." Now I have taken the ground that man was 
created in the divine image, and is by virtue of that 
fact a child of God, though he may have fallen away 
as all men have, and the new birth is not to restore 
relationship, but character . • 

Again he says, ' 'Sinful hearts cannot love the gospel: 
wickedness loves sin." Well, according, to my broth- 
er's doctrine, that was the condition in which all men 
are born, entirely depraved, wholly incapacitated for 
any thing good, and- unless Almighty power comes to 
their rescue they are hopelessly doomed. I believe 
men are sinful, but that there is good in them, having 
been created in the divine image, and God loves them 
and that is the pledge of their final redemption. But 



MR, HUGHES' FOURTH SPEECH. 65 

if sinful hearts cannot love the gospel who is respon- 
sible for the condition that they are in? And who is 
to blame for their eternal damnation? Will he tell us? 

There has never been a time since Christ founded 
the church upon the rock of eternal truth that there 
have not been christians in the world, and there has 
never been a time when there was not the same prin- 
ciple in it which I am preaching" today. Origen was 
born in the year of 185, and the school at Alexandria 
was in existence then. In that school was taught the 
doctrine of the final salvation of all men, and that 
doctrine was explicitly taught by learned men down 
to the time of Augustine who said there was very 
many in his time who believed it. And in all that 
time Universalism was as clearly recognized as any 
other doctrine. 

But he says he does not believe there will be any 
change after death, and wants to know how Christ 
saves sinners ? I ask him, does any man die perfect 
in this world ? If not, and there is no change after 
death, then his doctrine condemns every man, and 
there is no salvation for any. How does Jesus save 
sinners? I answer hx his word and spirit, so influen- 
cing them that the}' come to him, so as not to be cast 
out. 

Next I come to his question in reference to punish- 
ment and forgiveness ; and he wants to know if all 
sins will be punished. I refer him to Ps. lxii. 12, 
"Unto thee, O Lord, belongeth mercy; for thou ren- 
derest unto every man according to his work ?' ' In 
the administration of divine justice God renders to 
every man according to his work, and does it in mercy 



66 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

as well as justice. Does not that teach punishment 
for all sins ? I will give my brother a passage or two 
here. Amos. iii. 2, "You only have I known of all 
the families of the earth ; therefore, I will punish you 
for all your iniquities. ' ' Does he believe that ? Even 
the peculiar people of God are to be punished for all 
their iniquities. Does not that answer his question ? 
Turn to Hebrews ii. 2, 3, "For if the word spoken by 
angels was stedfast, and every transgression and diso- 
bedience received a just recompence of reward ; how 
shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation?" If 
there is no escape then men shall receive a. just recom- 
pence of reward for every traiisgression and disobe- 
dience. 

"But who were the spirits in prison ? I answer they 
were the spirits of those who were disobedient in the 
times of Noah. When did Christ preach to them? 
He preached to them after he was put to death in the 
flesh, and quickened in the spirit ; and he preached to 
them when in prison. So we learn from the 3d. 
chapter of I Peter. In the next chapter it is said, 
"For, for this cause was the gospel preached to them 
that are dead, that they might be judged according to 
men in the flesh, but live according to God in the 
spirit.'' verse, 6. The preaching was to spirits, not 
to men in the flesh, that they might "live unto God 
in the spirit. ' ' So there is preaching of the gospel in 
the future world. 

My brother takes the position that the phrases "the 
world," and "all men" do not mean all men literally, 
but as I understand him, "his people" among all 
nations representatively, and so he understands Ps. 



Mr, HUGHES' FOURTH SPEECH. 67 

Xxii. 27, "All the ends of the world shall remember 
and turn unto the Lord ; and all the kindreds of the 
nations shall come and worship before him." That 
is, so shall there be a people out of all the kindreds of 
the world, not all mankind really. I have something 
now I wish to offer upon that subject, for I deem this 
matter important, and upon which this controversy 
turns. 

First, I understand. that when the word world re- 
fers to man in its first and most literal meaning, it is 
a universal term and means all mankind, as does the 
words "all men," and "every man" in their first or 
primary meaning, and that it devolves on my oppo- 
nent to show that in the proof texts I have given that 
there is a reason why they are to be restricted in their 
meaning. Of course, I understand that these words 
are not always to be taken in their full meaning, as 
in their historical meaning, or in their particular ap- 
plication to some time, place or subject, but in these 
proof texts of mine there is nothing in text, context, 
or in nature of subject that so limits them, and so 
they must be understood in their full and unlimited 
significance. I will now give you many passagss 
illustrating this point. 

"God was in Christ reconciling- the world unto himself." 

The word world here to includes all that is express- 
ed in Col. i. 19, 20. 

"For it pleased the Father that in him should all fullness 
dwell ; and having made peace by the blood of his cross, by 
him to reconcile all things unto himself ; by him I say, 
whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. ' ' 

I can see no. limitation, nothing to require it. Take 
these passages that follow : 



68 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

"God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten 
Son." Jno. iii. 16. 

"For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the 
world, but that the world through him might be saved. ' ' 
Jno. iii. 19. 

"Behold the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the 
world." Jno. i. 29. 

"For the bread of God is he which cometh down from 
heaven and giveth life to the world. ' ' Jno. vi. 33. 

"The bread that I give is my flesh, which I will give for 
the life of the world." Jno. vi. 51. 

"Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which 
shall believe on me through their word ; that they all may be 
one; as thou Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also 
may be one in us, that the world may believe that thou hast 
sent me. Jno. xvii. 20, 21, 23. 

"Then spake Jesus again unto them, I am the light of the 
world ; he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but 
shall have the light of life." Jno, viii. 12. 

"And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into the world, 
that they which see not might see, and they which see might 
be made blind." Jno. ix. 39. 

"If any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him 
not, for I came not to judge the world, but to save the 
world." Jno. xii. 47. 

The word world does not in a single instance mean 
the righteous excluding the wicked ; nor the elect, or 
a special people. But in all instances where it means 
less than all mankind, it means specially the wicked 
excluding the righteous ; as in the following passages: 

"If ye were of the world the world would love its own ; 
but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen ye out 
of the world, therefore the world hateth you." Jno. xv. 19. 

"And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, 
and of righteousness, and of judgment. " Jno. xvi. 18. 

' 'I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou 
gavest me out of the world. ' ' Jno. xvii. 6. 



MR. HUGHES' FOURTH SPEECH. 69 



"They are not of the world, even as I am not of the 
world." Jno. xvii. 16. 

"We know that we are of God, and that the whole world 
lieth in wickedness." I Jno, v. 19. 

"And he is the propitiation for our sins ; and not for ours 
only, but for the sins of the whole world." I Jno. ii. 2. 

In the very nature of the case there can be no limi- 
tation of the word world to an elect or special few. 
Why make an universal term when applied to mankind 
mean the smaller part — much the smaller part? When 
limited to a part of mankind the text indicates it, and 
it includes the unsaved, the much larger part. So 
these texts stand in all their force as full proof of my 
proposition. God loves the world; God was in Christ 
reconciling the world to himself, and he sent his Son 
to be the Savior of the world. And we can be per- 
fectly sure, therefore, that he is "indeed the Savior of 
the world." 

In the text concerning those in Thessalonica wdio 
were contrary to all men, I Thess. ii: 15, any one 
knows that the phrase is not used in an universal 
sense. It is a historical instance, it limits itself. But 
is that any reason why, where it is said Christ "tasted 
death for every man," it is not to be understood in its 
true and unlimited sense ? Judge the text by its con- 
nection and the subject to which it is applied. We 
determine how many have been given to Christ as 
spoken of in Jno. vi. 37, by the direct teaching in 
Jno. iii. 35, "The Father loveth the Son and hath 
given all th i?igs into his hands," and the fact that 
"he is the Lord of the dead and the living." He 
certainly gave to Christ all he desired him to save. 
And having sent his Son to be the Saviour of the 



70 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

world, we cannot say he does not desire the salvation 
of all ; and so gave all into the hands of Christ, -= 
[ Time expired, 

MR. DAISY'S FOURTH REPLY. 



Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and Gentle- 
men: — It will not take very long to speak a half hour 
if I hurry, and I will try to hurry. ' There is one 
question to which I desire my brother's attention that 
he has not noticed. The question is, Will punishing 
a guilty man for his sins ever make him holy ? Is 
holiness or innocency ever the result of punishment ? 

In referring to the restricted passage, "Whosoever 
believeth in him should not perish but have everlast- 
ing life," he says his position is that all will believe. 
Do all believe in this life ? Do any die without be- 
lieving? If they do, the change must be in the fu- 
ture world. If you say there is any change, any re- 
pentance in the future world, prove it. The burden 
of proof rests upon you. Proof is what we want, not 
assumption ! Assumption might go very well if you 
had only those before you that believe your doctrine, 
but there are those here, and I am among the number, 
who do not believe it. To satisfy us you must prove 
your position, and not merely assume that it is true. 

"Sheol, he says, is never rendered hell Psalm ix. 
17, "The wicked shall be turned into sheol, with all 
the nations that forget God." I used that to prove 
the terms "all the ends of the world," and "all the 
kindreds of the nations, in Ps. xxii. 27, do not 



MR. DAILY'S FOURTH REPLY. 7 1 

mean all the human race, but must be taken in a re- 
stricted sense. I shall notice this passage again more 
fully when I come to my proposition. 

He argues that the spirit of man in being created in 
the image of God became his child, and therefore all 
the spirits of the human family are his children. I 
ask how it can be that creation constitutes one a child. 
Do you recognize any distinction between being a 
mere creature and being a child of his? Does not cre- 
ation constitute us creatures of the Creator, and not 
his children? If creation constitutes human beings 
the children of God, I cannot see why that same work 
does not make the brute creatures his children. The 
distinction of being created in his image cuts no 
figure in the case, for that renders us only a higher 
order of creatures. 

He refrered rather sarcastically to my assertion that 
sinful hearts that are in love with sin cannot love the 
gospel, in presuming to deny that position. Does he 
mean to say that such hearts can love the gospel? 
Hearts that have no love for God, that despise him — 
does he say that men in that condition love the gospel? 
I say they can love Universalism, and some of them 
do, but the}^ cannot love the gospel. 

I never saw God, he says, for he is a Spirit. That 
is true. But he reasons that I have never seen all of 
man, because I have not seen his spirit. How weak 
that is! I have never seen the spirit of a man, but 
who, except a Universalist pressed in a debate, would 
contend I had never seen a maji for that reason? 

There have always been people who believed in 
Universalism, he says. I suppose there is not an 



72 FIRST PROPOSITION 

error under the sun but that there have been people 
for ages who held it in some phase. But I say there 
is no record of a Universalist church farther back than 
one hundred and fifty years. Mr. Nye, a noted Uni- 
versalist, testifies, "There is a distinct, separate body 
of Christian believers called the Universalist church. 
It was organized a little more than a hundred years 
ago." There never was such a distinct, separate 
body, before. This is positive proof that the doctrine 
of that church is false, and there is no setting that fact 
aside! 

He asks if any man dies perfect, in attempting to 
make the point that they all die in an imperfect state 
in this world. Assuming that I would admit that 
they all die imperfect here, he draws the conclusion 
that all would be condemed, if there is no change 
after death. I quote you the opinion of Paul in Heb. 
vii. 19: "For the law made nothing perfect, but the 
bringing in of a better hope did, by the which we 
draw nigh unto God.'' All that have this better 
hope, which is received in regeneration, are made per- 
fect by the one offering of Christ, for it is said, "By 
one offering he hath forever perfected them that are 
sanctified." These die perfect, not being punished as 
much as they deserve to be for their sins. He argues 
that God will not be merciful even to the sins of his 
people, but will punish them all for every sin they 
commit as much as they deserve to be punished. But 
God says to them, "I will be merciful to your unright- 
eousness, and your sins and your iniquities will I re- 
member no more." He chastises his children for their 
disobedience, but that is not an atonement for their sins , 



MR. DAILY'S FOURTH REPLY. 73 

He says the body dies at death, and not the spirit. 
Then when it is said he is Lord both of the dead and 
the living, it is the body that is referred to as being 
dead. He has authority and power over dead bodies 
to resurrect them, as he did the body of Lazarus. I 
will show the destiny of man's body when I come to 
my proposition. 

All the use he makes of being born again is that 
they may become children of God in some kind of mor- 
al sense. He does not meet the argument I made that 
if all are children of God by creation, which he has not 
proved and cannot prove, then it is not necessary for 
sinners to be born again. 

He says if it is necessary he will say something about 
how Christ saves sinners. I want him to say some- 
thing about that. If Christ does not save sinners 
from punishment, from death, from sinning or from 
hell, does he save them from anything f If so, from 
what f I want him to tell what he saves them from 
and how? Get out of the brush, and show yourself, so 
I ca?i know just ivhere to shoot! 

In trying to prove that the term "world" in the 
passage he quotes means every individual of the 
human race, he refers to the text that says Christ 
tasted death for every man as an evidence of the sup 
posed unrestricted use of such terms. In the second 
chapter of Hebrews, in which that text is found, the 
term "every man" is restricted to those brought to 
glory by the captain of their salvation, spoken of as 
"many sons." "All that the Father giveth me shall 
come," is another supposed proof. The restricted 
sense expressed in that passage is a positive denial that 



74 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

all universally will come, and I think he knows it. 

His position is that the gospel must be preached to 
all. As it is not preached to all in this world, he as- 
sumes it will be preached in the next. He has quoted 
the commission, "Go into all the world, and preach 
my gospel to every creature," to support his position. 
He did not give the text in full. I ask him, Is the 
gospel preached to all the members of the human fam- 
ily by those who are sent out to preach it ? He says 
it must be preached to all ; that is the way sinners are 
brought to Christ. Is it preached to all the members 
of the human family? Admitting it is not, he as- 
sumes it will be preached in the future world, to sin- 
ners after they are dead. It will not be preached by 
ministers sent out to preach it, surely. I assume he 
will not take the position that he and I will preach 
the gospel to sinners after we are dead. Yet he takes 
the position that by this preaching all the world will 
be brought to Christ. But he says Christ preached 
to- the spirits in prison after his death, and that this 
means he preached to sinners in the spirit world. 
That preaching is spoken of as done in the past, the 
time being specified as the days of Noah. So that 
preaching is not going on now 7 . 

Negative Argument IX. I offer my ninth argu- 
ment against the doctrine of this proposition, which 
is that Jesus plainly taught that both soul and body 
of some would suffer in hell after the death of the 
body. 

Matt. x. 29 : "And fear not them which kill the body, but 
are not able to kill the soul : but rather fear him which ia 
able to destroy both soul and body in helh ' ' 



MR. DAILY S FOURTH REPLY. 75 



Luke xii. 4, 5 : ''And I say unto you my friends. Be not 
afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no 
more that they can do. But I will forewarn you whom ye 
shall fear : Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power 
to cast into hell ; yea, I say unto you, Fear him." 

When is this destruction to be? After the body 
dies. Both soul and body are to be destroyed in hell- 
This being true, all will not be finally holy and happy. 
If there is no such place as hell, if there is no punish- 
ment of the body after death, and if there is no dan- 
ger of anybody being cast into such a place, then 
Christ used deceptive language. Christ was address- 
ing the Jews here in language that was plain enough 
for any one to understand, and instead of correcting 
the opinion the Jews held, he sanctioned and confirm- 
ed their opinion by teaching the same thing himself 
by showing that the soul and body could be cast into 
hell alter death of the body. We will wait and see if 
Brother Hughes attempts to evade this argument. 
But I make this summary of the argument before I 
leave it : 

1 . A proposition that teaches or implies that there 
is no such a state into which the soul and body can be 
thrown after the death of the body, contradicts the 
teaching of the Saviour and is false. 

2. This proposition denies there is such a state 
into which the soul and body can be cast after the 
death of the body, and contradicts the teaching of the 
Saviour. 

3. Therefore, this proposition is false. 

Negative Argument X. I now invite your atten- 
tion to my tenth argument. It, is drawn from the 
teaching of Jesus in the following passage : 



76 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

John viii' 21-24. "Then said Jesus unto them, I go my 
way, and ye shall seek me, and shall die in your sins : whith- 
er I go ye cannot come. Then said the Jews, Will he kill him- 
self ? because he saith, Whither I go, ye cannot come. And 
he said unto them, Ye are from beneath ; I am from above : 
ye are of this world ; I am not of this world. I said there- 
fore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins : for if ye believe 
not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins. " 

This language was addressed to the Pharisees who 
did not believe in Christ, and who declared that his 
record was untrue. He plainly teaches in this decla- 
ration, "Ye shall die in your sins ; whither I go ye 
cannot come," that those who die in their sins cannot 
go after they die where he went after he died. He 
taught in the twenty-fourth verse that to die in un- 
belief would be an evidence or proof that they would 
die in their sins. After thus dying, he positively as- 
serts that they could not go where he went after 
death. I want this audience to give close attention 
to whatever reply my opponent may attempt to make 
to this argument, if he attempts to make any, and see 
if his explanation of the text is not an attempt to 
evade its plain teaching. 

Negative Argument XI. i now advance to the 
eleventh argument against this proposition. It is 
predicated on the teaching of the circumstance of the 
rich man and Lazarus. Luke xvi. 19-31 

"There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in 
purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day ; and 
there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid 
at his gate, full of sores, and desiring to be fed with the 
crumbs which fell from the rich man's table : moreover the 
dogs came and licked his sores. And it came to pass, that 
the begger died, and was carried by the angels into Abra- 
ham's bosom : the rich man also died and was buried ; and 



MR. DAILY'S FOURTH REPLY. 77 

in hell he lifted up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth 
Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried 
and said, lather Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Laz- 
arus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool 
my tongue ; for I am tormented in this flame. But Abraham 
said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy 
good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he 
is comforted, and thou art tormented, and beside all this, 
between us and you there is a great gulf fixed : so that they 
that would pass from hence to you cannot ; . neither can 
they pass to us, that would come from thence. Then he said, 
I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him 
to my father's house : for I have five brethren ; that he may 
testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of 
torment. Abraham said unto him. They have Moses and the 
prophets ; let them hear them. And he said, Nay, Father 
Abraham : but if one went unto them from the dead, they 
will repent, and he said unto him, If they hear not Moses 
and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though 
one rose from the dead. " 

This lesson is plain. It seems that it ought not to 
require any explanation whatever. Though there are 
some embellishments here, that cannot be called in 
question, but that does not destroy the fact that is 
embellished. That there is some figurative language 
in this is certainly true,- but that will not destroy the 
facts that are plainly asserted in this lesson. I take 
the position that this is actual history related by 
Christ, from whom nothing but the truth could come. 
The teaching of Christ would have been incomplete 
without the instruction contained in this narrative. 
As he was a teacher sent from God, it must be ex- 
pected he would give plain instruction in regard to 
the future life. If bej-ond the grave there is a place 
of rest and peace, it is expected he would speak of it. 



7$ tfifeST proposition. 

If there is a world of woe after death, he would lay it 
open also and give plain instruction concerning it. 
In all cases that Christ spoke parables it is said that 
he spoke a parable unto the people. It is not said 
here that this is a parable. It is said there was a cer- 
tain rich man, and there was a certain beggar that lay 
at his gate. In this historical narrative, given by the 
wise teacher, he has lifted up the curtain that covers 
the dark world of death and condemnation, and bade 
us behold how fearful a thing it is to be lost. We are 
made to look in upon one who was rich in his lifetime, 
living in splendor and faring sumptuously, but after 
death was so poor he could not purchase a drop of 
water. He suffered after death without the least 
prospect afforded him of mittigation or cessation. If 
there had been any prospect of future deliverance 
Abraham would have informed or reminded him of it, 
and encouraged him to have fortitude because of re- 
lief that would certainly come. But no hope is 
afforded ; the gulf is fixed, it cannot be passed. I 
think I know the stand my brother will take with re- 
ference to the teaching of my blessed Saviour in this 
lesson. But I shall not anticipate his explanation t 
but think I can safely promise to meet it when it is 
made. — [Time expired. 



Mi?, hughes' fifth speech. 79 

MR. HUGHES' FIFTH SPEECH. 



Messrs Moderators, Ladies and Gentle- 
men: — I am very glad to appear before you this morn- 
ing again in defense of the proposition you have just 
heard read. First, I wish to call your attention to 
the insinuation made two are three times in this dis- 
cussion by Mr. Daily, that some of my interpretations 
of scripture were made to evade their plain teachings. 
He cannot consider that as courteous, and it is palpa- 
ble violation of our rules. He surely would not have 
done so, had he not been a little disturbed in his 
mind. 

"Whosoever believeth," is no restriction if all be- 
come believers, as is a legitimate conclusion, seeing 
that "God so loved the world, that he gave his only 
begotten Son ;" whom "he sent not to condemn the 
world, but that the world through him might be 
saved. John iii. 16, 17. But what is the proof of 
faith and repentence after death ? My whole argu- 
ment bears upon that point. I regard man as a free, 
accountable being, with the same capability and re- 
sponsibility in both worlds. God as the same loving 
and just being hereafter as here, and the direct teach- 
ing of scripture, that "the gospel was preached to the 
dead, that they might be judged according to men in 
the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit. I 
Peter ix. 6. Christ's preaching to spirits in prison. 
I Peter iii. 18, 19. This preaching was not done in 
the days of Noah as he assumes, as is manifest in the 
better rendering of the Revised Version : "Christ was 



§6 £tk§¥ proposition. 

put to death in the flesh, but made.aHyg in^e spirit ; 
in the which he went and preacned* unro t*he spirits in 
prison, that were aforetime disobedient, when the long 
suffering of God waited in the days of Noah." The 
disobedience was aforetime in the days of Noah. The 
preaching was to them in prison after the death of 
Christ. It was to them as spirits, by Jesus in his own 
individual spirit. And this calls for something more 
from Brother Daily than mere assumption, and loud 
assertion on his part. 

But his reference to "The wicked shall be turned 
into hell, (sheol) ; and all the nations that forget God," 
he used to prove that the phrases "All the ends of the 
world," and "all the kindreds of the nations," do 
not mean all the human race. And why ? Because 
if "all the ends of the world" and the parallelism "all 
the kindreds of the nations," mean all men, then 
"all will remember and turn unto the L,ord, and come 
and worship before him," and I have proved universal 
repentance, and there is no help for it. 

But this passage only teaches what is most evident 
from Ps. lxxxvi. 9. "All nations whom thou hast 
made shall come and worship before thee, O Lord, 
and shall glorify thy name." Since, therefore, "God 
made of one blood all nations of men to dwell on all 
the face of the earth, and that they might seek his 
face" (Act xvii. 26, 27.), it becomes evident and 
clear that there will be universal repentance. And 
the fact that the wicked, and all the nations that for- 
get God, shall be turned into hell {sheol) does not mili- 
tate against it one iota. For sheol is not an eternal 
prison ; it is to be destroyed. 



MR. HUGHES FIFTH SPEECH. 8 1 

But my friend has found one place where "all na- 
tions" really means all nations ; namely, Matt. xxv. 
32. I would kindly ask him, if that is the only place; 
and if there is any other place in all God's word that 
a believer in a partial and limited atonement dare 
make such an admission ? He is very anxious for me 
to 'get out of the brush/' and tell him how Christ 
saves sinners, and what effect his death has upon 
them. I would not have him to think for a moment 
that I believe in a limited vicarious atonement, in 
which not only the punishment, but the 'sins them- 
selves" of the elect were transferred to Christ. Thus 
making him who was "without sin," "holy, harmless 
and undefiled," (Heb. iv : 15. vii : 26.) the greatest 
sinner of all the world ! ! ! That is too abhorrent, too 
monstrous in every sense ; wounding every sensibility- 
of righteousness, outraging every sense of justice. 
And so far I am glad to be "out of the brush!"' 

The atonement in which I believe is moral in its ef- 
fects. It commends God's love to men, wins their 
love to God, and reconciles them to him, and saves 
them by his life. Rom. v. 10. "God w r as in Christ 
reconciling the world unto himself." II cor. v. 19. 

Now, my brother, will you allow me to ask you, 
what has all this to do with the question in debate ? 
There are man}- in other churches who believe in the 
final salvation of all, who believe in a universal, vica- 
rious atonement. But take whatever view of Christ's 
death ; — even yours, brother Daily— and make it uni- 
versal, and universal salvation follows, and there is no 
escape. And the sharp, clear cut issue between us is 
whether Christ's death is for all mankind. And this 



82 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

is the reason why I have been so insistent in pressing 
upon you the fact that "Christ gave himself a ransom 
for all," that "he tasted death for every man," that 
the "Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world, 
and all those universal terms so constant, and so uni- 
form throughout the Bible that the entire christian 
world, with but few exceptions, accepts it. Even the 
majority of the Baptist denominations believe it so far 
as I know. Brother Daily, you must do something to 
lift this enormous load from your shoulders besides 
demanding what is my theory in reference to Christ's 
drath, however absurd that ma}^ be. I believe he died 
for all men, and if I prove that, then I have proved 
my proposition so far as this debate is concerned : and 
I cannot insult your intelligence so much as to believe 
you do not know it. 

But how does creation make one a child of God? 
Creatio?i alofie does not, as I have stated a number of 
times. Wh} T cannot my brother "understand my 
speech ?" "God is spirit," and he is the "Father of 
spirits. Heb. xii. 9. If you have a spirit God is the 
Father of it. He is never said to be the Father of the 
flesh. The children are partakers of the flesh and 
blood, but they are not flesh and blood. It is the 
spirit that is created in the divine image, and to it he 
has imparted the divine nature, and the relationship 
of a child of God. Man is not, therefore, a creature 
only, but a child as well. This was true of Adam 
who was a "son of God," (Luke iii. 3S'.)aud it is true 
of the Heathen, who are the "offspring of God." 
Acts. xvii. 28-29. And so there is "One God and 
Father of all." Eph. iv. 6. 



MR. HUGHES' FIFTH SPEECH. 83 

"Resemblance does not make one a child." It 
does not in relationship, but it does in the character- 
istic sense. I have already referred to Math. v. 44-45 
in proof, but my friend pays no attention. Jesus 
says, "Love your enemies that ye may be the children 
of your Father which is in heaven." They were al- 
ready children in the sense of relation, but in loving 
enemies they became his children in character. 
Just as the Jews were "Abraham's seed," and so rela- 
ted as children, but not in character, because they did 
not his works. Jno. viii : 37-56. 

But the Universalist Church did not exist in the early 
days of Christianity. This I know very well so far as 
the organized church is concerned, and he need not 
go to so great pains to prove what nobody disputes. 
But so far as doctrine is concerned it did, and was rec- 
ognized as orthodox as much as any other doctrine. 

Doederlein, German theologian, once declared that, 
"The more highly distinguished in Christian antiqui- 
ty any one was for learning, so much the more did he 
cherish the hope of future torment ending." 

Dr. Edward Beecher testifies : "Beyond all doubt 
in the age of Origen and his scholars, and in the times 
of Theodore Mopsuestia (between 200 A. D. and 420 
A. D.) the weight of learned and influential ecclesias- 
tics was on the side of Restoration." 

What point does it make if the church then was 
not called the Universalist Church ? or that there was 
no organization called by that name before the days 
of John Murray ? How does that effect the truth of 
our proposition ? Christ gave no name to his Church. 
Even the name of christian was not applied to it until 



84 FIRS? PROPOSITION. 

we find the disciples at Antioch, and there we are not 
sure but that it was applied to them in derision. I 
cannot see what all this has to do with the question. 
and several other matters brought up by my friend. 
We are debating the question of the final holiness and 
happiness of all mankind. It is my business to prove 
it by the Scriptures, his to show that the Scriptures 
quoted by me are misapplied. But he manifests a 
great anxiety to do something else, to introduce nega- 
tive arguments, make strong assertions on passages 
he merely quotes without any argument upon them, 
or to show how they prove his positions. To all of 
this I shall give such attention as I think necessary, 
and reserve to myself the necessary time to introduce 
such matter in the affirmative as is required, and the 
matter thus introduced should claim his first atten- 
tion. 

Now I come to punishment and forgiveness ; and I 
call your attention first to the fact that there is 
taught in the Bible both punishment and forgiveness. 
But nowhere in the Bible is it said that punishment 
will be forgiven ; it is always the forgiveness of sins. 
In the 99th Psalm, verse 8, we have these words : 
"Thou wast a God that forgavest them though thou 
tookest vengeance of their inventions." So there was 
here both punishment and rorgivenes in the same case. 
Again, "Speak ye comfortably unto Jerusalem, and 
cry unto her, that her warfare is accomplished, that 
her iniquity is pardoned ; for she hath received at the 
Lord's hand double for all her sins." Isa. xl. 2. 
Here also is both pardon and punishment. And if it 
be true as affirmed by Amos iii. 2, "You only have 



MR. HUGHES' FIFTH SPEECH. 85 

I known of all the families of the earth, therefore will 
I punish you for all your iniquities ;' ' and if there was 
forgiveness to any of those special people, then there 
was both punishment and forgiveness again. In Heb, 
ii. 2-3, it is declared, "Ever}' transgression and diso- 
bedience received a just recompence of reward, and 
there is no escape for those who neglect so great sal- 
vation :" then under God's government in general 
there is just punishment, and still forgiveness. For 
God is no respecter of persons. "But he that doeth 
wrong shall receive for the wrong that he hath done ; 
and there is no respect of persons." Col. iii. 25. 

The Jews were God's peculiar people, but to them 
there was no exemption from a just recompence of re- 
ward. So St. Paul declares : "Who will render to 
ever) man according to his deeds. To them who by 
patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and 
aonor and immortality, eternal life : but to them who 
are contentious, and do not obey the truth, indigna- 
and wrath, tribulation and anguish, upon every soul 
of man that doeth evil, of the few first, and also of the 
Gentile. For there is no respect of persons with God. ' ' 
When a man is elected to a high position, he is held 
to a high responsibility. Those who know, and do 
not the master's will, "will be beaten with many 
-tripes. And they who know not, and yet do things 
worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes." 
Luke xii. 47-48. When one has received his punish- 
ment and accepted it, just enough to turn his feet 
from the way of the transgressor, then God freely 
forgives him and remembers his sins against him no 
more. The prodigal left his father's house, spent all 



86 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

in riotous living, and perishing with hunger came to 
himself, and returned to his father who received him 
with rejoicing, put on him the best robe, and killed 
for him the fatted calf — the son was lost and found, 
dead and alive again. There is the whole story, and 
surely enough to prove both forgiveness and punish- 
ment. 

But we have destruction of both soul and body in 
gehe?ma. I would like to know how my brother can 
make out his proposition of endless punishment after 
the destruction of both soul and body in hell ? As to 
the meaning of the word gehenna in Christ's time, I 
deny that it meant a place of endless punishment in his 
day. There is not an athority extant among Jewish 
writers till at least 300 years after Christ that ever 
used it in that sense. Christ could have used it only 
in the sense of limited punishment, and Brother Daily 
knows that in its first meaning it only means tempo- 
ral punishment. 

He makes an argument on John viii. 21, "Then 
Jesus said unto them, I go my way and ye shall seek 
me, and ye shall die in your sins ; whither I go, ye 
cannot come." In answer to this, I refer him to John 
xiii. 33, "Little children, yet a little while I am with 
you. Ye shall seek me ; and as I said unto the Jews 
whither I go ye cannot come, so now I say unto you." 
I submit that if that language proves the endless mis- 
ery of the Jews, so it does of Christ's disciples also; 
for the same words are applied to them in the same 
sense. 

I come now td the rich man and Lazarus, which my 
friend says is literal history. And here I join issue 



MR. HUGHES' FIFTH SPEECH. 87 

with him, and say that it is a parable. I ask him, 
then, why was the poor ma.i conveyed to Abraham's 
bosom? Why was the rich man sent to torment? It 
was not said the poor man was a good man, nor 
that the rich man was a bad man. Nothing is said of 
their character, even by intimation. To have "evil 
things' ' here, does that ensure heaven ? To have 
"good things" in this world, does that make hell cer" 
tain ? My friends, why are you all so eager for good 
things in this life, if they mean eternal perdition in 
the world to come ? If this is literal history why is 
there a great gulf fixed to keep the bad out of heaven 
and the good out of hell? It is said ; "Besides all 
this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed, 
so that they who would pass from hence to you cannot; 
neither can they pass to us, that wonld come from 
thence." There might be some friend who still had 
human feeling, that would go to the relief of some 
friend in hell ! But not a drop of water to cool a 
parched tongue! All very gracious and beautiful as 
history, and perfectly consistent with the doctrine 
which condemns men to torments and agonies before 
they are born ! Is hell and heaven so close together 
that their inhabitants can converse across the great 
gulf ? Are the saved in heaven all nice and comfort- 
able, while in hell within sight and sound those who 
on earth had good things are in the flames of hell ? 
Is it true that on earth it is an abomination to have 
no compassion or suffering, while in heaven that same 
sin becomes a virtue? Which had you rather be, 
Abraham pleading for Sodom, or Abraham rejecting 
the rich man's plea for his brethren because he had 



88 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

his good things on earth ? All of this if it is history. • 
But I deny that it is history. Let it be a parable rep- 
resenting the Jew dying to his former high position, 
and the Gentile rising to the high privileges of the 
kingdom, and we escape these absurdities. Jesus 
says, "Therefore I say unto you, the kingdom shall 
be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing 
forth fruits thereof," Matt. xxi. 43. But my friend 
must construe it as history in order to make out his 
case. But whatever application is given to it, when 
"hell {hades) w T ill deliver up the dead which are in 
it," it will itself be destroyed, (Rev. xx. 13) and so it 
gives no aid to Brother Daily's argument. I would 
like to know how many hells he has. Here is hades, 
v hell, and he has sheol, hell, and just a little while ago 
gehenna, hell. How many hells has he? Will he 
kindly explain ? 

I now pass to my ninth argument: 
IX. The Universal Submission to Christ. 
Phil. ii. 9-1 1. "Wherefore God hath highly exalt 
ed him, and given him a name which is above every 
name ; that at the name of Jesus every knee should 
bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and 
things under the earth ; and that every tongue should 
confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God 
the Father. ' ' 

1. We have here the most complete expression of 
universality. Every knee, and every tongue, in heav- 
en, in the earth, and under the earth, embraces every 
department of being, and no language could be more 
comprehensive. 



MR. HUGHES' FIFTH SPEECH. 89 

2. This universal homage and confession can but 
mean moral submission. Such only could be to the 
glory of God. There is no intimation that a part of 
mankind should confess in one way, and a part in an- 
other. In Isaiah xlv : 22-25, we read; "Look unto me> 
and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth ; for I am 
God, and there is none else. I have sworn by myself 
the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, 
and shall not return. That unto me every knee shall 
bow, ever}- -tongue shall swear. Surely shall one say, 
in the Lord have I righteousness and strength ; even 
to him shall men come ; and all that are incensed 
against him shall be ashamed. In the Lord shall all 
the seed of Isreal be justified, and shall glory." 

In this we learn that this universal submission shall 
be "111 righteousness and strength," which they swear 
they have in him. To bow the knee, and confess the 
name of Jesus to the glory of God, is to worship God 
and glorify his name as foretold by the Psalmist: "All 
nations whom thou hast made, shall come and worship 
before thee, O Lord, and - shall glorify thy name." 
Ps. lxxxvi : 9. 

X. Argument 

Rom. v. 12, 18-21. I commence reading at the 12th 
verse, and pass over to the 18th, for the intervening 
verses are parenthetical and do not affect the argument. 
"Wherefore as by one man sin entered into the world, and 
death by sin ; and so death passed upon all men for that all 
have sinned. Therefore, as by the offence of one judgment 
came upon all men to condemnation ; even so by the right- 
eousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justifi- 
cation of life. Far as by one man's disobedience many were 
made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made 



90 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

righteous. Moreover the law entered that the offence might 
abound. But where sin abounded grace did much more 
abound. That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might 
grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus 
Christ our Lord." 

Here we learn that the reign of sin is universal; "all 
have sinned." The condemnation that follows is uni- 
versal, "Judgment came upon all men to condemna- 
tion." But the reign of grace is to be equally univer- 
sal, "The free gift came upon all men unto justifica- 
tion of life." "The many shall be made righteous. " 
And universal righteousness proves my proposition . 
[ Time Expired. 



MR. DAILY S FIFTH REPLY. 



Gentlemen Moderators, Respected Audience 
and Worthy Opponent: — I feel truly grateful to 
God this morning that we are favored with such a 
beautiful day, that we are now so pleasantly situated 
and that we are progressing so well in the discussion 
of the question we have under consideration. Before 
I attend to the arguments made by my brother 
this morning, I shall invite your attention to some 
things brought out in this discussion yesterda}<\ The 
spirits of the unjust will enter the future world in an 
unjustified state, and as there will be a resurrection 
both of the just and the unjust (Acts. xxv. 15), the 
unjust will remain unjust till the time of the resurrec- 
tion whenever that takes place. My worthy opponent 
argued that those who enter the future world unjusti- 



MR. DAILY'S FIFTH REPLY. 9 1 

fied will be reformed by faith and repentance. This 
reformation will necessarily be made, then, after the 
resurrection, as the fact that the unjust will be resur- 
rected renders it impossible for it to take place before 
the resurrection. 

Again, as punishment is inflicted in this life on 
those who die impenitent, which fails to bring about 
their reformation here, and they go into the future 
world in an unjustified state, may they not enjoy that 
state in the future world as they did here, and may 
not punishment there fail to reform them as it did 
here? 

He argued that "all things" being given to Christ 
means that every member of the human family was 
given to him to be brought to enjoy a state of endless 
holiness and happiness. If that is the sense, and the 
term "all things" is unlimited, then the bodies of all 
men were given to him, and they will be brought to 
enjoy a state of endless holiness and happiness. This 
is clearly taught concerning those who will enjoy that 
state. 

I Cor. vi. 19-20. "What? know ye not that your 
body is the temple of the Holy Ghost, which is in you, 
which ye have of God, and ye are not your own ? For 
ye are bought with a price : therefore glorify God in 
your body, and in your spirit, which are God's." 

As the bodies of his people, as well as their spirits, 
were bought with a price, and belonged to God, they 
were given into the hands of Christ to be brought to 
glory by him . But judgment as well as salvation 
was given into the hands of Christ. 

John v. 22. ' Tor the Father judgeth no man, but hath 



$2 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

committed all judgment unto the Son." 

John v. 26, 27. "For as the Father hath life in himself; 
so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; and 
hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because 
he is the Son of man," 

So he has all given into his hands, to give eternal 
life to as many as the Father gave him as his people, 
and also to execute judgment upon the rest of man- 
kind. 

He claimed that the doctrine of Universalism is an 
ancient doctrine. The argument I made he has no- 
ticed only by saying that the Universalist church is 
not in the discussion. You remember the argument 
I made was that if Universalism, as taught in this pro- 
position, had been the doctrine of Christ and his apos- 
tles, the church founded by them would have been a. 
Universalist church, and as the gates of hell could not 
prevail against that church it would have continued 
to the present time as a Universalist church. But I 
have proved that the Universalist church never had 
an existence before the days of John Murray. 

I now desire to read from a work written by Matthew 
Hale, entitled "Universalism Examined, Renounced, 
and Exposed." Being compelled to evade a great 
many things taught in the word of God in order to 
stand by the assumptions of Universalism, he left the 
Universalist church and worked against it. I read 
from pages 76, 77, 78 & 79. 

"Error is as old as creation. That instruction which 
causeth to err, and leads down to death, began in 
Eden as soon as God's law was proclaimed. But the 
peculiar form of error known as Universalism is a 
modern affair. Upon no subject are many persons 



MR. DAILY'S FIFTH REPLY. 93 

more deceived. The present form of Universalism 
can date no farther back than 181 8, when Hosea 
Ballou avowed the doctrines that now compose the 
system. I say its present form, for the system has 
never been the same in an y two periods of time. 
The doctrines of Universalism ; the arguments offered 
in its favor ; the expositions of Scripture, which dis- 
tinguish it in one age, are set aside in the next ; and 
other doctrines, and other expositions, conflicting and 
contradictor}', take their place. An argument ad- 
vanced against Universalism in one age, will not 
touch the system in the next. Nothing connected 
with Universalism is permanent, except its moral 
results ; these remain unchanged, — always destruc- 
tive, every where licentious and fatal. Mr. Murray- 
is called "the father of Universalism ;." but not one 
doctrine that entered into the system, as defended by 
Murray, enters into it now. To this subject I shall 
devote more attention in my lecture upon the moral 
results of Universalism. 

"No one pretends that the present form of Univer- 
salism runs back any farther than 1818 ; while the 
system, under any form, can date back no farther than 
to John Murray, who is styled the 'father of Univer- 
salism.' {Mod. Hist, of Univ. p. 318.) The child 
is evidently no older than the parent, and Mr. Murray 
did not commence his public life till 1770. 

"I am not ignorant of th~ fact that Universalists 
attempt to show that Oigen, Clemens Alexandrinus, 
and some of the early Fathers, believed in Universal- 
ism. But, Universalists themselves being judges 
they have no claim upon these men. 



94 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

"Mr. H. Ballon, 2d, in his 'Ancient History of 
Universal ism,' cites Origen as a Universalist. But 
his own testimony proves that Origen did not believe 
in the salvation of all men. He held that all souls 
that have lived, or ever will live, were created at one 
time, and were all equal ; that all will be ransomed 
from hell, and stand as at the beginning. But while 
the damned will be restored, others will fall from 
purity, and take their place ; and as the once lost 
ascend to heaven, the once blest descend to hell ; and 
those restored can again fall, and be lost. Thus the 
soul would alternately experience the joy of heaven 
and the woe of hell. Origen believed that hell would 
always be full, and its fires never cease to burn. 
Such was his Universalism, amounting only to the 
doctrine of the migration of souls, from a place of pain 
to a place of bliss, and back again. (Anc. Hist. Univ. 

PP. 95, 99, ii4, 156.) 

"Clemens Alexandrinus was no more a Universalist 
than was Origen. He believed that to some the fu- 
ture life would be one of probation. He taught that 
all who died without knowledge of Christ, would have 
space for repentance ; implying that others would not. 
That he believed that all those would repent who 
have space for repentance, he does not assert. (Anc. 
Hist. Univ. pp. 71, 72.) 

"Universalism, as a system, we repeat, is a modern 
affair, not yet thirty years of age. Can any re- 
flecting man believe that God would give us a revela- 
tion, and the meaning of that revelation be unreveal- 
ed eighteen hundred years ? or that the true doctrines 



■MR. DAILY'S FIFTH SPEECH. 95 

of the Bible were unknown till Mr. Murray landed in 
this country in 1770 ?" 

This testimony from the auther of the ''Ancient 
History of Uuiversalism' ' is a refutation of the claim 
made that Origen believed the Universalist doctrine of 
today. There never was a published creed, issued by 
any religious body prior to one hundred and fifty 
vears ago that asserted the doctrine of Universalism 
and never was there known a church of that faith be- 
fore the days of John Murray. 

He says, <l 'Whosoever believeth 3 is no restriction 
if all believe." He is sufficiently aquainted with lan- 
guage to know that that form of expression indicates 
that all will not believe. If Jesus had meant to teach 
that all would finalh- believe and be saved he would 
have said, "Even so shall the Son of man be lifted up 
that all the human family should believe in him, 
and not perish, but have eternal life." 

His theory of reformation is that all are punished 
here, which results in the reformation of some, and 
that those not reformed by punishment here will be 
reformed b\~ punishment inflicted upon them after 
death. 

But he has also taken the position that all leave 
this world as sinners. Then none are completely re- 
formed here. It follows that all the human family 
will die unjustified, and will be subjected to punish- 
ment in the future world ! 

He attempts to prove that the gospel is preached to 
the ungodly in the future world, not by preachers, of 
course, but by Christ, by two passages, the first of 
which refers onlv to the wicked antediluvians, and 



96 FIRS? PROPOSITION. 

the second of which asserts that the gospel was 
preached to them that are now dead. If these texts 
mean what he claims, they do not teach that this 
preaching is going on now, or that any others except 
that particular class are refered to. He cannot prove 
that Christ is going now to the place where the un- 
godly are being punished to preach to them. Besides 
if punishment is the means employed by God to re- 
form them, preaching to them can do them no good. 

But I deny that these passages teach what he tries 
to prove by them ; that Christ, after he died, went to 
the place where the wicked were being punished, and 
preached to them for their reformation. In the third 
chapter of I. Peter the apostle treats of the resurrec- 
tion of Christ's bod}', a doctrine that was much dis- 
puted. To show that unbelief in him was nothing 
new, he refered to the same spirit of unbelief as exist- 
ing in the days of Noah. It was by his Spirit, the 
same Spirit by which his body was quickened or raised 
from the dead, that he went in the days of Noah and 
preached through him, as a preacher of righteousness, 
to the wicked generation that was then in being, and 
whose spirits were in the prison of hell at the time 
Peter was writing. The second passage reads, "For, 
for this cause w T as the gospel preached to them that 
are dead ; that they might be judged according to men 
in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.'' 
This passage says nothing about Christ's preaching 
the gospel to them after they were dead. It says the 
gospel wqs preached to them that are dead. They 
had been judged according to men in the flesh when 
they received the gospel, that is, censured, judged and 



MR. DAILY* S FIFTH REPLY. 97 

condemned by men in the flesh for receiving the gospel, 
but, notwithstanding this judgment, they lived ac- 
cording to God in the spirit. 

My opponent says his whole argument bears upon 
the point that faith and repentance will appear after 
death. He has not produced a single passage that 
proves that the unbeliever will be made to believe 
after death, or that the impenitent sinner will repent 
after death. In supposed proof he quotes Psalm 
lxxxvi. 9: "All nations whom thou hast made 
shall come and worship before thee, O Lord, and shall 
glorify thy name." This does not teach that any of 
those nations will turn and come to the Lord after death! 
Neither does the passage teach that every individual 
member of those nations will ever come and worship 
before him. His position is a mere assumption with- 
out proof . I would take his word were he to testify 
to an occurrence, if I had no knowledge of it myself, 
for I have confidence in his word, but in matters of 
this kind I must have proof . He could not prove any 
moral change in the future world if his eternal destiny 
depended upon it! I might stop right here, and give 
him all the remainder of the time, and he would fail 
to prove this assumption of his. As he utterly fails 
in this, at the same time admitting that some go into 
the future world unjustified, he utterly fails to sus- 
tain his proposition. Moreover, as he has asserted 
that all die sinful, and as he will fail to prove any 
moral change in the future world, it follows as a con- 
sequence of his doctrine that the human family will be 
universally lost! I deny that sheol, when used to repre- 
sent future punishment, will ever be destroyed. As to 



98 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

the number of hells about which he enquires, I will say 
that when I come to my proposition I will abundantly 
prove a hell as represented by sheol, gehenna, and 
hades, so we will let that matter rest for the present. 
He says he does not believe in a vicarious, limited 
atonement. The fact is, he does not believe in any 
atonement being made by the death of Christ at all. 
In the atonement as typified by the Jewish offerings, 
the sins of the people were ceremonially put upon the 
head of the scapegoat (Lev. xvi. 21). There is noth- 
ing in the Universalist doctrine that corresponds with 
this. In the antitype, "The L,ord hath laid on him 
the iniquity of us all" (Isa. liii. 6); "for the trans- 
gression of my people was he stricken" (verse 8); "he 
shall bear their iniquities" (verse 11); "he bare the 
sins of many" (verse 12); "this is my blood of the 
New Testament, which is shed for many for the re- 
mission of sins" (Matt. xxvi. 28); "he hath made 
him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, than we might 
be made the righteousness of God in him" (II Cor. 
v. 21); "who gave himself for us, that he might re- 
deem us from all iniquity" (Titus ii. 14); "who his 
own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree' ' 
(I Peter ii. 24). This is the atonement of the Bible 
which Brother Hughes says is "too abhorrent, too 
monstrous in every sense ; wounding every sensibility 
of righteousness, outraging every sense of justice." 
One who makes such an assertion in the face of these 
plain scriptural declarations regarding the atonement, 
is raiher to be pitied than blamed ! 

He is unable to show that any benefit is confer- 
red upon sinners by the death of Christ according to 



MR. DAILY* S FIFTH REPLY. 99 

his doctrine. He says it is moral in its effects in the 
sense that it commends God's love to men. How 
does it commend God's love to men when it does not 
remove or mittigate any punishment they deserve, 
when it does not deliver them from sin in any sense, 
save them from death, from the grave or hell? If 
men are saved because punished sufficiently, would 
they not have been saved as well without the death 
of Christ as with it ? He knows they would ! Then 
the death of Christ is no benefit to sinners. As it is 
no benefit it is useless. The love of God would not 
be commended by the useless death of Christ. Again 
the death of Christ does not win the love of sinners and 
reconcile them to God if punishment inflicted upon 
them is the instrument that brings them. This is 
wholly inconsistent, and Brother Hughes will forever 
fail to clear the inconsistency. 

He says creation alone does not make us the children 
of God. This is another s'hift. He first took the po- 
sition that we are the children of God because God 
created us in his image. I showed that this distinc- 
tion between the creation of man and the beast made 
man a creature of a higher order, but no less a creat- 
ure, and that if this creation rendered man a child of 
God brute creatures are his children also. He now r 
says creation alone does not make us children, and 
asks why I "cannot understand his speech." How 
can I understand his speech when he employs it in say- 
ing that creation in God's image made us his children 
and afterwards in declaring that creation alone did 
not make us his children f Who can understand such 
speech ? If creation alone did not, what more is used 



IOO FIRST PROPOSITION. 

in connection with creation to make us the children of 
God? Can he tell ? He assumes that, because it is 
said that he is the "Father of spirits," he is the Father 
of all spirits. He is the Father of the spirits that are 
born again or born of him, but that is no proof that 
he is the Father of all spirits. If he is, he is the Fa- 
ther of the spirits of the brute creation. He has ar- 
gued that being born of God does not make us his 
children by relation, that it simply makes us his chil- 
dren characteristically. Then I ask him again, What 
is done in connection with creation to make our spirits 
the children of God, if being born of God has nothing 
to do with it ? 

He says there is taught in the Bible both forgive- 
ness and punishment. That is true, but in the sense 
in which punishment is inflicted upon the sinner 
his sins are not forgiven. If a sinner is punished for 
his sins and forgiven at the same time, the •for- 
giveness is in a different sense and from a different 
stand-point from the punishment. This fact is 
clearly shown by the first text he used: Psalm xcix. 
8 : "Thou wast a God that forgavest them, though 
thou tookest vengeance of their inventions." In 
answer to Moses, Aaron and Samuel, mentioned 
in this connection, the Iyord repeatedly spared 
the nation of Israel and so forgave their sins, not 
punishing them for them, yet he took vengeance 
on the ringleaders of rebellion among them, not for- 
giving them but punishing them for their rebellion. 
Korah, Dathan and Abiram are examples. The next 
text quoted as supposed proof of the absurd idea that 
sinners are punished as much as tlq.ey deserve and yet 



MR. DAISY'S FIFTH REPLY. IOI 

forgiven is Isa. xl. 2 : "For she hath received at the 
Lord's hands double for all her sins." How could 
the servant of God comfort his people by telling them 
they would be doubly punished for every sin they 
commit ? By the misapplication of the text Brother 
Hughes makes it appear that God not only punishes 
all as much as they deserve for all their sins, but that 
he inflicts double punishment — going beyond what they 
deserve! How forgiving his God is, and what mercy 
he displays! ! ! The meaning of the text is that the 
people of God receive the washing away of their sins 
by the blood of Christ and also a new heart and na- 
ture. They are not only made clean by the blood of 
the "Captain of their salvation" who accomplishes 
their victory for them, but a new nature is imparted 
to them. Though they are sinners, yet they thus re- 
ceive double blessings, which the prophet was author- 
ized to publish for their comfort. Here is forgiveness 
and mercy displayed. But the doctrine of Brother 
Hughes admits of neither mercy nor forgiveness. 

God in exercising parental government over his 
people chastises them for their sins. The apostle says, 
"If ye be without chastisement, ye are bastards and 
not sons." This is not a full punishment designed as 
an atonement for their sins, but a fatherly correction 
for their good here. Punishment designed as an 
atonement was inflicted upon Christ who "bore their 
sins in his own body on the tree." It was in this 
sense of fatherly correction that "every disobedience 
received a just recompense of reward" on the part of 
national Israel. In that sense their disobedience 
was not forgiven. Over his enemies God exercises 



102 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

judicial authority and punishes them as the}^ deserve 
to be. To that kind of punishmint I will give atten- 
tion in the discussion of my proposition. 

I now take the position that punishment is not in- 
flicted upon sinners in this life in proportion to the 
sins they commit. Brother Hughes holds they are 
punished here, and the punishment of some will con- 
tinue hereafter to a limited period just as it is inflicted 
here. I propose to demonstrate the absurdity and 
falsity of this theory. 

i st. Sinners are not punished here in their pttysi- 
cal bodies in proportion to their sins, for some who 
are wicked suffer less in that respect than some of the 
righteous. There are wicked people who suffer very 
little from desease and pain, while there are many 
righteous people who suffer a great deal in that res- 
pect. 

2d. Sinners do not suffer in their conscience in 
proportion to their sins, for the farther one goes in the 
practice of sin the more hardened his conscience be- 
comes and the less he suffers in that respect. Take the 
case of the confirmed drunkard. He may have been 
somewhat touched in the early stage of his dissipation t 
but as he pursues his dissipated course he feels it less 
and less. Convince him that he is being punished as 
much as his sins deserve and he will be likely to ex- 
claim, "Give me more liquor! Give me more liquor! I 
can stand the punishment!' ' Those who are in love with 
sin enjoy the practice of it, and thus they continue in it 
in preference to living a religious life. If this state is 
to continue in the future world, as Mr. Huges' posi- 
tion implies, there can be no reason for supposing there 



MR. DAILY'S FIFTH REPLY. 103 

will be an}' change in their feelings or in the degree of 
their punishment. Sinners are not punished, then, 
in proportion to their sins, either in their bodies or 
conscience, from the standpoint of Universalism . 

In attempting to answer my argument on the state- 
ment of Christ to the unbelieving Jews, that they 
should die in their sins, and could not go where he 
went, Brother Hughes quoted John xiii. 33, where 
Christ said to his disciples, "Little children, yet a 
little while I am with you. Ye shall seek me ; and as 
I said unto the Jews, whither I go ye cannot come, so 
now I say unto you." While the words are similar 
the circumstances differ, and the results are not the 
same. Peter said to Christ, "Lord, whither goest 
thou?" Jesus answered him, "Whither I go ye can- 
not follow me now, but thou shalt follow me after- 
wards." The evident meaning is that he was com- 
pelled to die alone, that they could not be with him 
in that. This was the reason they could not go where 
he went at that time. But he comforts them with 
the assurance that they should follow afterwards. He 
never said such a thing to the unbelieving Jews. He 
gave as a reason wlty they could not come to him, 
that they "should die in their sins." . 

He joins issue with me and says the circumstance 
of the rich man and Lazarus is a parable. Christ 
never used a circumstance as a parable that was un- 
real, or that had no existence in fact. So if this is a 
parable it was a real occurrence used to illustrate a 
spiritual truth. But there is no intimation that it is 
a parable, and in the absence of that we cannot agree 
with Brother Hughes. As a further argument on 



104 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

this circumstance I will say that the Jews believed in 
the doctrine of punishment after death, and they be- 
lieved this punishment was endless. Mr. Balford a 
noted Universalist writer, calls this a heathen notion. 
He says, "Now I admit that to this heathen notion 
our Lord might allude in the parable before us. The 
Jews had, in our Lord's day, imbibed many heathen 
notions and this among the rest." Josephus says 
' 'They believe that souls have an immortal vigor in 
them, and that under the earth there will be rewards 
and punishment, according as they have lived virtu- 
ously or viciously in this life ; the latter are to be de- 
tained in an everlasting prison, but the former shall 
have power to revive and live again/' 

Now, knowing this was the Jewish belief, our 
Saviour, instead of correcting it, which he would have 
done had it been altogether false, confirmed them in 
there opinion by using the circumstance of the rich 
man and Lazarus. In this lesson he even added to their 
information in an important way. He taught that 
even the Jews would be subjected to this state of 
misery after death by speaking of one of their number 
who suffered in that state after he died. Mr. Whitt- 
more says, "Let it be distinctly understood, that it 
is our opinion that Jesus introduced those views of 
hades which the Jews had received from the heathen, 
and used them in a parabolic sense to illustrate his 
instructions." Now if Christ found this belief preva- 
lent among the Jews, would he not have plainly point- 
ed out the error if it had been erroneous ? Instead of 
correcting them, he admitted their opinion of future 
punishment, used their language, and added to the in- 



MR. DAILY'S FIFTH REPLY. 105 

tensity of their notions of hell. He believed in endless 
punishment or he did not. If he did, then Universal- 
ism is a positive error. If he did not, then — but I 
forbear to finish the sentence. It is blasphemy to say 
he did not, for such an assertion would represent him 
as a deceiver of the people, failing to correct an error 
that is claimed to be dishonoring to God and unsafe 
to man, and even going so far as to illustrate that 
very doctrine in a familiar way. 

Mr. Hughes' interpretation of the account of the rich 
man and Lazarus, that the rich man represents the 
house of Israel and the beggar the Gentile nation, is 
both absurd and false for the following reasons: 

1. In the history, as recorded by the inspiration of 
God, both the rich man and Lazarus died. If the 
interpretation given by Brother Hughes were correct 
only one would have died — the beggar was already 
dead. And when the rich man died by losing all his 
advantages, the beggar, by obtaining them, of course 
came to life. Instead of placing the rich man in hell, 
and sending Lazarus into Abraham's bosom, the Sav- 
iour, on the ground of Universalism, would have placed 
the beggar in the rich man's house and put the rich 
man at his gate, to beg a few crumbs from the table of 
Lazarus. 

2. His interpretation represents the Jews as beg- 
ging now for the gospel privileges enjoyed by the 
Gentiles, just as the rich man begged, "Father Abra- 
ham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he 
may dip the tip of his finger in the water, and cool 
my tongue." This represents the Jewish nation as 
thirsting intensely for gospel privileges. This ought 



I06 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

to be sufficient to prove to all honest minds that the 
interpretation given by my opponent is false and ri- 
diculous. The Jews, as a nation, have never acknowl- 
edged that the gospel of Christ is the true faith, and 
they have never intimated that they desire its bless- 
ings and privileges. 

3. The explanation makes it utterly impossible for 
the Jews ever to be converted to the true faith. It 
matters not how much he may desire to be a christian 
or how much the christian may desire to reach him 
with the gospel aud comfort him, such a thing can 
never be, for the gulf is fixed. How any one can be- 
lieve this absurd interpretation with this fact before 
him is the greatest of mysteries. 

4. If the rich man was a type of the Jewish nation 
his request for Lazarus to be sent to his five brethren 
who were yet upon earth, lest they also should come 
into the place of torment where he was, was perfectly 
absurd. He wanted Lazarus sent to his father's house. 
If he was the Jewish nation, Abraham was his father, 
and the house of Abraham was his family of children. 
If he was the Jewish nation, and Lazarus was the 
Gentile nation, then they represented the entire hu- 
man family, and there could have been no brethren of 
the rich man on earth. 

5. All who care to do so ma)' read the entire ac- 
count and substitute the term Jewish nation for the 
rich man, and the term Gentile nation for Lazarus, 
wherever these words occur, and the absurdity of 
that position will be plain. 

Negative Argument XII. My twelvth argument 
is that the basis upon which this proposition is made 



MR. DAILY'S FIFTH REPLY. 107 

to rest is false, as it sets aside entirely the forgiveness 
of sins and predicates the theory that punishment re- 
sults in holiness and happiness. Suffering the penalty 
of law does not remove guilt and render the guilt} in- 
nocent of the sins they commit. A sinner could not 
be made innocent by suffering, though his suffering 
should be continued to an infinite duration. If the 
theory of my opponent be correct, and heaven is 
filled with beings who have reached that place merely 
through punishment, it will be filled with guilty per- 
sons, and not an innocent being will be there of all 
the human family. 

The forgiveness of sins is synonymous with the for- 
giveness of debts. Luke xi. 12 : "And forgive us our 
sins ; for we forgive ever}- one that is indebted to us." 
Matt. vi. 12 : "And forgive us our debts, as we for- 
give our debtors." 

Can there be forgiveness of debt and the debtor be 
still required to settle the debt? Suppose A to be in 
debt to B to the amount of $1000. Suppose B should 
say to A, I forgive you the debt you owe me. Of 
course A would be happy in the supposed release from 
the debt by the mercy and kindness of his creditor. 
But suppose B should then saj^ to A, I forgave you 
the debt, but you must pay the $1000 in full. Would 
not A consider B a falsifier ? What benefit would 
such forgiveness be to him ? [ Time expired. 



I08 FIRST PROPOSITION. 



MR. HUGHES' SIXTH SPEECH. 



Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and Gentle- 
men : — It has been a long, long time since I had the 
book of Matthew, Hale Smith* thrust into my face. 
Every one who is acquainted with the history of that 
man knows that after his renunciation of Universal- 
ism he went back again into the Universalist church, 
and after that recanted again. And I do not know 
where he did finally land. But this I know, that he 
was wholly unreliable, and that he misrepresented 
Ballou's Ancient History of Universalism. Origen 
believed in the salvation of all mankind, and whoever 
believes that is a Universalist. No one contends that 
he held all points as the church does now. But I 
very much doubt whether he would have denied any 
of the essential points of the church. 

I have shown you that there was, within the first 
four hundred years after Christ and his apostles, six 
theological schools, and four out of the six taught 
Universalism. That down to the days of St. Augus- 
tine "there was a large number with human feelings, 
who compassionated the eternal punishment of the 
damned, and so believed it would not take place." 
And that those who held the views of Origen were 
probably in the majority. So I cannot see how the 
name of the church cuts any figure in the case, so 
long as the doctrine was in the church as I have 
proved it was. The only authority cited by my friend 
is Matthew Hale Smith, a renegade from the Univer- 
salist church, who recanted his recantation ! ! 



MR. HUGHES' SIXTH SPEECH. 109 

But he thinks that if Universalism had been taught 
by Jesus and his apostles, the church would have been 
called a Universalist church. That does not follow. 
Can he tell what was the distinctive name of the 
church in those days ? It was not called the Baptist 
church. So his logic would destroy his own church. 
According to the best learned in church history, Uni- 
versalism was taught by Christ and his apostles. The 
doctrine diminished in the dark ages, for Universalism 
and ignorance and superstition are not compatible. 
But when light and knowledge and freedom came, it 
began to grow again. And I know it to be a fact, as 
do many here today, of ministers coming into the 
Universalist church from the Primitive Baptist church, 
and bringing their whole congregations with them. 

But he says that I contradicted myself in saying 
that the unjust go into the future state unjust. What 
I said was that I deny that there will be any unjust 
beyond the resurrection, and that is the point for him 
to meet. I am not assuming death makes any change 
in one's moral condition, and he knows it. 

He denies that the phrase "all the ends of the 
world" means all mankind. I think it does, just as 
in the kindred passage, "All nations whom thou hast 
made shall come and worship before thee, O Lord, 
and shall glorify thy name." Ps. lxxxvi. 9. If 
words mean anything, this surely means the whole 
human family, for there are no nations whom God 
did not make. "He made of one blood all nations of 
men to dwell on all the face of the earth." Acts xvii. 
26. I see no way to limit these passages. And if 
they are unlimited, my proposition is true. Then if 



IIO FIRST PROPOSITION. 

"the gospel was preached to the dead that they might 
be judged according to men in the flesh, but live ac- 
cording to God in the spirit" (I Pet. iv. 6.) then there 
is a proclamation of salvation in the spirit world to bring 
them to repentance. So if all men do not remember 
and turn unto the Lord in this life, the proof is that 
they will in the future. 

About relationship to God, he says, some are bas- 
tards and not sons. The passage in Hebrews says, 
"If ye be without chastisement whereof all are par- 
takers, then are ye bastards and not sons." Heb. xii, 
9. To be without chastisement is not a supposable 
case ; for all are partakers of it, and therefore there 
are no bastards. All are children. But we are told 
that God holds the relationship of Judge to mankind. 
True ; but it is the Father who is Judge ! 

Bro. Daily does not believe in infant damnation. 
All children who die in infancy are elect, I suppose ; 
and how does it happen that none of the non-elect ever 
die in infancy ? And to what greater accountability 
do the non-elect acquire by living to manhood ? If 
"man by nature is spiritually bound with chains, 
shut up in darkness, and in a prison house," how can 
he acquire any accountability should he live to be as 
old as Methuselah? Brother Daily denies that he 
prosecutes this discussion on the grounds of Armin- 
ianism, and yet he talks about Universalism leading 
sinful men to love it because they then can be sinful 
without any "'hazard" of final consequences. What 
hazard is there according to his "system?" Can any 
man change his future condition to a hairsbreadth if 
Calvinism is true ? Can the elect do anything to en- 



MR. HUGHES' SIXTH SPEECH. Ill 

danger their salvation ? Can the non-elect do anything 
to change God's decree that was made before the 
world was that consigns them to everlasting fire? 

No ; I do not believe in a limited vicarious atone- 
ment ; much less in the ' 'Particular atonement' ' of the 
Primitive Baptist church, which represents Christ as 
taking upon himself "the sins themselves" of the elect, 
and so makes Jesus a sinner ; which to my mind is 
revolting, immoral and blasphemous ! The doctrine is 
that "the principal part of the punishment of sin con- 
sists in a sense of guilt, and of Divine wrath ; but 
neither of these could Immanuel have endured, unless 
he had borne our sins themselves." See Particular 
Redemption, p. 65. So that the sins of the elect were 
"transfered to him" And yet we are told he was 
"without sin." Heb. iv. 15. The doctrine that 
makes Christ "guilty " and to bear "Divine wrath," 
I reject with abhorrence, and am quite willing to bear 
the blame of it, and desire no pity ! 

The passages wmich speak of Christ "bearing our 
sins," quoted by my friend, he misapplies In Matt, 
viii. 16, 17, it is said, "and he healed all that were 
sick ; that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by 
Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmi- 
ties, and bare our sicknesses." Christ bore their 
sickness and infirmities by healing them. He did not 
become sick in their stead, not did he suffer the pains 
of their diseases. Just so he bears our sins by curing 
them. Will he tell you how an infinately Holy Being 
can become sinful, and suffer divine wrath ? And 
where is the justice in putting the punishmont of the 
guilty on an innocent being ? Is he willing to follow 



112 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

• 

Christ's example in suffering for guilty persons ? 
"For even hereunto were ye called ; because Christ 
also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye 
should follow his steps, I Peter ii. 21. 

The word atonement occurs but once in all the New 
Testament, and there it means reconciliation. Rom. 
v. 11. And there man receives it and not God. "By 
whom we have now received the atonement." So 
again Paul teaches "that God was in Christ reconcil- 
ing the world unto himself." II Cor. v. 19. So the 
atonement is moral and to affect men, not God. It 
is to "bring us to God," as St Peter says, I Peter iii- 
18. We are reconciled to God by the death of his 
Son, but to be saved by his life. Rom. v. 10. 

My friend makes quite an effort on the rich man 
and Lazarus, but it avails him nothing. In all he 
says, he makes no reply to the reasons I adduced in 
proof of its being a parable. But should I admit his 
contention that it is an actual occurrence, when the 
time comes that ''Hades gives up the dead which are 
in it/' and it is destroyed, (Rev. xx. 13, 14.) it can 
no longer serve his purpose as an argument for end- 
less torment. And right here he should give some 
attention. But he does not. But being a parable, 
he should remember that the rule is that "a parable 
does not run on all fours," and that a particular con- 
struction is not to be forced upon every part of its 
imagery. In answer to his points : the direct applica- 
tion of the parable was to the Scribes and Pharisees, 
and sinners to whom it was addressed, and the "five 
brethren" were brought in to show its general appli- 
cation to the nation. 



MR. HUGHES' SIXTH SPEECH. 1 13 

The rich man did not appeal for gospel privileges. 
He was a Jew, and recognized as such. The death of 
both represents their change of condition. The 
kingdom of God was taken from one and given to the 
other; and the believing Gentile is "blessed with faith- 
ful Abraham." Gal. iii. 9. The Jew was rejected 
from the house of Abraham. It was said unto them, 
"Behold your house is left unto you desolate." Matt, 
xxiii. 39. Jerusalem is in possession of the Gentiles, 
and it is to be trodden down by them, until the times 
of the Gentiles be fulfilled 

Part only of the Jews believed in endless punish- 
ment. The Saducees did not. But Jesus did not use 
their terms to describe punishment as I expect to 
show. Besides he condemned the doctrine of both 
sects of the Jews. Matt. xvi. 6. "Beware of the 
leaven of the Pharisees and the Saducees." And by 
this he meant the "doctrine of the Pharisees and Sad- 
ucees." Verse 12. 

Brother Daily's attempted reply to my argument 
on punishment and forgiveness, I must say, is a com- 
plete failure. In Psalm xcix. 8, he tries to make it 
appear that God took vengeance of one set of persons, 
and forgave another. Whereas it is the same persons 
that are both punished and forgiven. And in Isaiah 
xl. 2, he would have you believe it was blessings that 
came upon Jerusalem, instead of punishment, for all 
her sins. I never learned before that men were to be 
doubly blessed for their wickedness. Jeremiah the 
Prophet has it quite different ; "First I will recom- 
pence their iniquity and their sin double, because they 
have defiled my land, they have filled mine inheritance 



114 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

with the carcasses of their detestable and abominable 
things." Jer. xvi. 18. And he does not mean bless- 
ings. But he means as does Amos, when he says, "I 
will punish you for all your iniquities." iii. 2. I am 
not understanding the word double as meaning twice 
as much as deserved, but used for emphasis and to 
the full amount. 

A question for Brother Daily. As God will not 
forgive the sins of the nonelect, but punish them to 
all eternit}r, and as he exacted a full punishment for 
the sins of the elect on his Son Jesus Christ, where 
then is there forgiveness for any sin ? And if the 
forgiveness of sins is synonymous with the forgiveness 
of debt, and Jesus paid the debt, where then is there 
any forgiveness of punishment according to his system. 

When a debt is forgiven it is not paid, and when 
my friend finds a passage that says that punishment is 
forgiven, I will yield the point. There ma) 7 be a ne- 
cessity of forgiving penalty in an imperfect human 
government, but not in the divinely perfect govern- 
ment of God. His punishments are all just. To re- 
move them would be unjust, and as they are meant for 
reformation, unmerciful as well. "Unto thee, O Lord, 
belongeth mercy ; for thou rendereth unto every man 
according to his works." Ps. lxii. 12. 

I have never taken the position, nor have I ever 
believed that men are saved because they have been 
fully punished ; or that there is any saving grace in 
punishment. And Mr. Daily's 12th argument is with- 
out point. I believe in punishment as a discipline, 
as a restraint, as a corrective, and that "God chastens 
for our profit, that we may be partakers of his holi- 



SIXTH SPEECH. 1 15 

ness." Heb. xii. 10. So far it is contributory to 
reformation, and there is no need of its forgiveness, 
as under the system of endless punishment. 

I insist that it is my friend's '"system" that makes 
punishment for salvation, for if Jesus had not suffered 
the whole penalty deserved b}- the elect, even they 
would not be saved. And in his second speech he 
says of the words, "vengeance belongs to God," and 
and that "God is a consuming fire," that this applies 
to those who are born again ; it is to be considered as 
"purifying the gold and destroying the dross." If 
that does not teach that punishment is a saving pro- 
cess, then I cannot understand language. And Bro. 
Daily, thou art the man ! You seem to think that 
punishment is a means of grace with the elect, but of 
destruction to the wicked. 

XI. Argument. 

I now advance to my eleventh argument. 

"For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are 
not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be re- 
vealed in us. For the earnest expectation of the creature 
waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. For the 
creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by 
reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope. Because 
the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage 
of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. 
For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth 
in pain together until now. And not only they but ourselves 
also, which have the first fruits of the Spirit, even we our- 
selves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to 
wit, the redemption of our body. ' ' Rom. viii. 18-23. 
- 1. Man is the creature mentioned here ; the ration- 
al creation, mankind in general. Prof. Stuart says, 
"I have satisfied my own mind, that ktisis (creature) 



Il6 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

here means as in Mark. xvi. 15, and Col. i. 23, man- 
kind in general, in distinction from, but not in oppo- 
sition to christians as such." Man is the only crea- 
ture of whom it can be said, that he was made "sub- 
ject to vanity," yet "in hope," with "an earnest ex- 
pectation," and is finally to be "delivered into the 
glorious liberty of the children of God." 

2. The glorious liberty of the children of God, in- 
to which the creature is to be delivered, means the 
final deliverance or salvation from the bondage of cor- 
ruption in which the whole creation groans and sighs 
for in its present imperfect state. It means the final 
holiness and happiness of all mankind. 

XII. Argument. 

My twelfth argument is drawm from Rom. xi. 25, 
26. 

"For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of 
this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; 
that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness 
of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved: 
as it is written, There shall come out of Zion the deliverer, 
and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: for this is my 
covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins. As 
concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but 
as touching the election, they are beloved for the Father's 
sakes. For the gifts and calling of God are without repent- 
ance. For as ye in times past have not believed, yet have 
now obtained mercy through their unbelief; even so have 
these also not now believed, that through your mercy they 
may also obtain mercy. For God hath concluded them all 
in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all. O the 
depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of 
God ! How unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways 
past finding out ! For of him, and through him, are all 
things: to whom be glory forever. " 



MR. HUGHES SIXTH SPEECH. 117 

i. With the apostles the Jew and the Gentile com- 
prise the two divisions of the whole human family . 

2. When the "fullness of the Gentiles come in" and 
1 'all Isreal are saved, ' ' that makes complete the re- 
demption of the world. 

3. The blindness, and fall through unbelief of 
Israel is not a valid objection to their final salvation. 
For though "enemies as concerning the gospel," 
"they are beloved for the Father's sake," in accord- 
ance with the "election" in which there is no change 
of God's purpose. His gifts and callings are without 
repentance. 

4. The stubborn unbelief and disobedience of both 
Jew and Gentile, is not conclusive as against their 
final recovery, "For he hath concluded them all in 
unbelief that he might have mercy upon all" 

5. All in accordance with the purpose of him 
"unto whom are all things." 

The Jews had been the peculiar people of God. 
The divine oracles were given to them to be extended 
to the other nations of mankind. But when the Christ 
came they rejected him. But this chapter tells us that 
though blinded and cut off, yet they were to be finally 
restored, and all Israel — blinded Israel — was to be 
saved. As Jesus said in the Temple, "Behold your 
house is left unto you desolate: For ye shall not see 
me henceforth, till ye shall say, blessed is he that 
cometh in the name of the Lord." Matt, xxiii. 38, 
39. This shows that the saying, "Whither I go ye 
cannot come," was not pronouncing their final doom; 
for though long years of desolation were to come upon 
them, yet finally they were to welcome the Lord's 



Il8 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

coming, saying, "Blessed is he that cometh in the 
name of the Lord." 

Go back if you please to the garden of Eden to the 
offence by which sin entered into the world, and you 
find the first promise. "And I will put enmity 
between thee and the woman, and between thy seed 
and her seed ; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt 
bruise his heel." Gen. iii. 15. Sin is finally to be 
destroyed, and man victorious. The wound in the 
head is mortal. "For this purpose was the Son of 
God manifested, that he might destroy the works of 
the devil." I John iii. 8. "Seventy weeks are deter- 
mined upon thy people, and thy holy city, to finish 
the transgression, and make an end of sins, and to 
make reconciliation for iniquity, and bring in ever- 
lasting righteousness." Dan. ix. 24. Sin being 
brought to an end, holiness and happiness will be 
universal. [Time expired. 

MR. DAILY'S SIXTH REPLY. 



Gentlemen Moderators, Respected Audi- 
ence, and Worthy Opponent : — I have had a very 
pleasant rest for a half hour, and now I am ready to 
resume the negative side of the question which we are 
discussing. I desire to treat my brother with fair- 
ness, and aim to answer everything that is pertinent 
or that has any connection with the question under 
discussion. He has been making an effort, it seems, 
to draw me from the question. He is trying to drag 
into this discussion a discussion of the doctrine of elec- 



MR. DAILY'S SIXTH REPLY. IIQ 

tion and depravity. I understand that quite well. 
We are discussing his doctrine of the endless holiness 
and happiness of all the human family. He is in the 
affirmative and I am in the negative, and I intend to 
confine myself to that doctrine. 

He makes a desperate effort to cling to the views of 
Origen as affording proof that the doctrine of Univer- 
salism existed from an early day, though the church 
did not. He admits that Origin did not believe as he 
does, but says he "doubts very much whether he 
would have denied any of the essential points held by 
the church." The fact is, it is now exceedingly 
doubtful just what Origen believed. Rufinus, in his 
apology for Origen, alleges, that his writings were 
maliciously falsified by the heretics, and that, in con- 
sequence thereof, many errors were attributed to him 
which he did not adopt ; as also, that the opinions, in 
which he differed from the doctrine of the church, 
were only proposed by him as curious conjectures." 
Mosheim's Church History, Vol. I p. 90. If he held 
that "the torments of the damned will end," that was 
one opinion in which he differed from the church. 
He is said to have taught that "the Scriptures are of 
little use to those who understand them as they are 
written ;" "that the sun, moon and stars were anima- 
ted and endowed with rational souls ;" and "that 
after the resurrection all bodies will be of a round 
shape." But Brother Hughes has admitted that the 
Universalis! church, in the early days of Christianity, 
did not exist so far as the organized church is concerned. 
This is yielding the point, and his play upon 
the name made in his last speech amounts to nothing. 



120 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

The church of Christ did exist from the beginning of 
Christianity. The Universalist church did not exist 
as an organization in the early days of Christianity 
(saying nothing about the name). The conclusion is 
that the doctrine of this proposition, which is the distinc- 
tive doctrine of the Universalist church, was not taught 
by Christ and his apostles! ! As to theological schools, 
they, like Origen, taught errors for which the church 
was not responsible. 

He says, ''The doctrine diminished in the dark ages, 
for Universalism and ignorance and superstition are 
not compatible. But when light and knowledge and 
freedom came, it began to grow again." So we are 
to understand that all who do not understand his doc- 
are destitute of light and knowledge, and are enveloped 
in ignorance and superstition! All the world was in 
this lamentable state, notwithstanding the learning 
and piety of so many that then lived, until fohn 
Murray arose and founded the Universalist church, a 
church that had never ezisted before ; a?id the reason 
people will not receive that doctrine now is that they are 
ignorant and SUPERSTITIOUS, and lack ught and 
KNOWLEDGE ! ! 

He denies that ai^ will be unjust beyond the resur- 
rection, at the same time asserting that death does 
not make any change in one's moral condition. Then, 
as he has taken the position that all the human family 
die sinful, he must believe that ev-ry one will be 
changed in the future world and no?ie here! But I 
have proved that the unjust will be raised from the 
dead, so there ivill be that ?nany, at least, who will not 
be changed between death and the resurrection! 



MR. DAISY'S SIXTH REPLY. 121 



All nations that God has made will come and wor- 
ship before him, but this does not signify that every 
individual of all those nations will do so, neither does 
it prove that the change of any will take place after 
they die. God will have a people ' 'redeemed out of 
every kindred, and tongue, and nation," which is 
conclusive proof that all in those nations are not re- 
deemed. 

He says he does not believe in a limited, vicarious 
atonement. He has failed to show how Christ's 
death benefits us in the least. He denies that the 
death of Christ releases us from punishment, from 
death, from sinni?ig, from hell or from anything else! 
If that is true, his death is no atonement at all. 
What application to his doctrine could he make of the 
type of the scapegoat ? None whatever. We would 
have suffered as much if Christ had not died, we 
would have been as certainly saved if he had not died, 
so we receive no benefit whatever from his death. As 
his death is absolutely useless, it does not commend the 
love of God to us! 

He attempts to seek refuge in the statement that 
Christ bore the sickness of the people by curing them, 
and the assumed parallel position that he bore the sins 
of sinners by curing them. I ask how Christ cures 
the sins of sinners. Sins are acts of violation of 
God's law already committed, and he says the sinners 
who commit them are punished fully for them. Then 
no sinner is cured of any si?is committed. He cannot 
show any cure for sins committed that Christ ever 
affects according to his doctrine. 



122 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

He argues from the passage, "But if ye be without 
chastisements, whereof all are partakers, then ye are 
bastards and not sons," that it is proof that all are 
sons, for all are partakers of chastisement. Now if 
all universally were partakers of chastisements, would 
Paul have said, "If ye be without chastisements?" If 
all universally were sons, would he have said, "Ye 
are bastards, and not sons, if ye be without chastise- 
ments?" The fact is, all are not children who pro- 
fess to be. All the children of God are partakers of 
chastisements. Those who profess to be sons and are 
not, are without chastisements. This proves them to 
be "bastards." A case must be tveak indeed that re- 
quires such perversion of a plain text to support it! 

He say the doctrine of both sects of the Jews were 
condemned by Christ. He only condemned that 
which was false. But in his presentation of the cir- 
cumstance of the rich man and Lazarus, he acknow- 
ledged their views of future punishment and enforced 
the same by the use of that circumstance. My argu- 
ment on that he has failed to meet, and the inconsis- 
tencies of his view of it as shown by me he has not 
cleared up. 

I come again to punishment and forgiveness. He 
claims that my reply to his argument was a complete 
failure. I deny that Psalm xcix. 8 teaches that the 
persons who were punished were forgiven the sins for 
which they were punished. Such a thing could not 
be. It is a positive contradiction within itself. Any 
one can see that if a sinner is punished and made to 
snffer for his sins those sins are not forgiven! But he 
asks where is there forgiveness of the elect if Christ 



mr. dairy's sixth reply. 123 

suffered for their sins. That is easily answered. As 
Christ bore their sins in his own body on the tree and 
put them away by the sacrifice of himself, dying for 
them the just for the unjust, that he might bring them 
to God, and being made to be sin for them, that they 
might be made the righteousness of God in him, he 
has the perfect right to forgive their sins and thus re- 
lease them from punishment. If he should require 
punishment of them after suffering for them himself, 
there would be no forgiveness. If a surety pays the 
debt of the principal, he has the legal right to forgive 
the debt and not require it of him. The debtor could 
not exact it, for that would be double payment. 

In the case of the prophet being required to comfort 
God's people on the assumption that they would have 
to suffer doubly for all the sins they should commit 
in a lifetime, the ridiculous absurdity of such a thing is 
apparent to all. What comfort could there be in our 
being informed that we must suffer for all the sins we 
commit, even to the double extent of their deserts? 
Then, too, what zvarfare would ever be accomplished 
in such a case by us or any one else ? These are ques- 
tions he can never answer. They present inconsisten- 
cies he can never clear up. His effort to construe 
this passage to teach his doctrine is evidence of the 
desperate strain under which he is laboring, and procf 
of the weakness of the cause he is trying in vain tj 
bolster up. I must ask to be excused for even refej- 
ing to the assertion made by him over and over, that 
punishment is not forgiven. A?id he asks me to prou 
that it is/// There is about as much sound reason in 
speaking of punishment being forgiven or not forgiven. 



124 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

as there is in saying that the sins of a sinner are for- 
given after he has been punished fully for committing 
those sins ! 

He says my twelfth argument is not in point, be- 
cause he does not take the position that there is any 
saving grace in punishment. The argument I made 
was that punishment never can render the punished 
innocent, and if sinners could be forgiven because 
punished sufficiently they would still be guilty. 
Neither punishment nor forgiveness renders the sinner 
innocent. If heaven should be peopled by sinners 
punished for their sins, and merely forgiven, it would 
be peopled by guilty people and there would not be 
an innocent person there. If there is anything done 
for the sinner to render him pure and innocent, ac- 
cording to Universalism, let Mr Hughes tell us what 
it is that is done for him. 

He pays no attention to my argument in which I 
showed that sinners are not punished either in their 
physical bodies or in their conscience according to the 
sins they commit. As sinners enjoy a sinful state and 
a sinful life here, may they not enjoy it in the world 
to come if the same "punishment" is to continue 
there? As they prefer that state and life to a 
life of holiness here, will they not prefer it there if 
there is no moral change affected by death ? I^et my 
opponent attend to these questions. 

In reply to his argument based upon Rom. viii. 18- 
23, I deny that this has reference to the original crea- 
tion of man. The creation mentioned here is the 
new or spiritual creation accomplished in regeneration, 
and the creature meant is the new creature in Christ 



MR. DAILY'S SIXTH REPLY. 125 

referred to in II Cor. v. 17 : "Therefore if any man 
be in Christ he is a new creature." The preceding 
verses show this conclusively, 

"The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, 
that we are the children of God : and if children, then 
heirs," &c. In the 20th verse the creature is said to 
be "subjected in hope." Unchanged sinners are de- 
clared to have no hope and to be without God in the 
world. Eph. ii. 12. So the whole human family are 
not included here, but only those who are subjected 
in hope. The Greek word ktisis (creature) being 
used here is no proof that the original creation is re- 
ferred to, because the same word {ktisis) is employed 
to designate the new creature mentioned in II Cor. v. 

17. 

When I closed my last speech I was on my twelfth 
argument against this proposition. I argued that 
suffering the penalty of the law or being forgiven of- 
fences committed against the law, does not remove 
guilt or render the guilty innocent. I have called 
upon him time and again to show how punishment 
can ever result in purity. He has failed to do it. I 
require him to show it from the Bible or from the 
standpoint of human reason if he can. I hope he will 
give some attention to that in his next speech. If 
punishment cannot result in purity, what more does 
the Lord do for the sinner to make him pure ? Will 
he tell us ? 

To give the teaching of the Bible on this subject I 
call your attention to Rom. iv. 7, 8 : "Blessed are 
they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are 
covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will 



126 Firs? proposition. 

not impute sin." What is the covering for sin? My 
opponent says it is punishment inflicted upon the 
sinner Then the Lord imputes sins to that sinner. 
But the text declares that the Lord will not impute 
sin to that sinner whose sins are covered. To show 
what the covering is I quote Isaiah liii. 6 : "All we 
like sheep have gone astray ; we have turned every 
one to his own way ; and the Lord hath laid on him 
(Christ) the iniquity of us all." There is the cover- 
ing for sin. It is in the atonement of Christ, for 
which the system of my brother has no use. "Blessed 
is the man unto whom the Lord will not impute sin." 
There are those unto whom the Lord will not impute 
sin, because their sins are covered. You sa3' God 
will impute sins to everybody. The covering for sins 
is the blood of Christ by which our sins are washed 
away. I John i. 7 : "The blood of Jesus Christ his 
Son cleanseth us from all sin." 9th verse : "He is 
faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse 
us from all unrighteousness." The blood of Christ 
finds no place in the system of Universalism. In that 
system Christ is no more than a mere figurehead. 
There is no covering for sin in it, no washing aivay of 
guilt. 

Negative Argument XIII. I base my next argu- 
ment against this proposition upon the ground that it 
implies that all of every kindred, tongue, people and 
nation, will be redeemed, (or would be if there were 
any redemption in the system). This is a contradic- 
tion of the song to be sung by the redeemed, as men- 
tioned in Rev. v. 2: "And they sang a new song, say- 
ing, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open 



MR. DAILY'S SIXTH REPLY. 127 

the seals thereof : for thou wast slain, and hast re- 
deemed us 10 God by thy blood out of every kindred, 
and every tongue, and every people, and every nation. " 
In all the arguments made in support of this proposi- 
tion it has not been shown that any redemption from 
sin has been accomplished, that dny ransom for sinners 
has been given. On the contrary it has been argued 
with all the ability possessed by my opponent, that 
no redemption, no ransom, no payment made by Christ, 
releases a single sinner from the aivful conseque?ices of 
his sins. 

This passage shows what is meant by "the whole 
world" and "all men" so often referred to by Broth- 
er Hughes, whom Christ is said to have come to save. 
The fact that the children of God were redeemed out 
of every kindred, tongue, people and nation, is proof 
positive and certain that all of ev.ery kindred, tongue, 
people and nation were not redeemed. Those redeem- 
ed will be on the right hand when all nations are 
gathered together before him, and to them he will 
say, "Come ye blessed of my Father, inherit the king- 
dom prepared for you from the foundation of the 
world." Those not thus redeemed will be on 
the left hand, and to them he will say, "Depart from 
me ye cursed, into everlasting fire." Will they form 
a part of the "world" that Brother Hughes says 
Christ will save? Is it from this fire that Christ 
saves sinners ? 

Negative Argument XIV. My. next argument is 
that some are known b} T the Lord as his children, 
while others are not thus known. 



128 FlRS? PROPOSITION. 



Matt. xxi. 23 . "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, 
Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven, but he that 
doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will 
say unto me in that day, Lord, have we not prophesied in 
thy name ? and in thy name have cast out devils ? and in thy 
name done many wonderful works ? And then will I profess 
unto them, 1 never knew you ; depart from me, ye workers 
of iniquity," 

II Tim. ii. 17-19 : ' 'And their words will eat as doth a 
canker : of whom is Hymenaeus and Philletui. Who con- 
cerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection 
js past already ; and overthrow the faith of some. Never- 
theless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, 
the Lord knoweth them that are his." 

"The Iyord knoweth them that are his." That 
proves that all are not his. As those mentioned in 
Matt. xxi. 23 were never known by the I^ord, and as 
he knows them that are his, it follows as an unavoid- 
able conclusion that many will not be his and never 
were. 

Negative Argument xv. My next argument is 
based on the nature of the work of redemption by 
Christ. Eph. i. 7 : "In w r hom we have redemption 
through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to 
the riches of his grace." This redemption is unto 
obedience. Titus ii. 14: "Who gave himself for 
us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and 
purify unto himself a peculiar people zealous of good 
works." To be zealous of good works is to give 
evidence that we have been redeemed from all iniquity 
and purified by Christ. Many live and die who never 
show any zeal for good works, but live and die in the 
love and practice of sin. This proves they have never 
been redeemed and purified by Christ. As there is no 



mr. daily's sixth reply. 129 

change in the future world taught in the word of God, 
this state will continue forever. 

I will now attend to an argument made by my 
opponent, based on the statement made in the nth 
chapter of Romans, ''And so all Israel shall be saved : 
as it is written there shall come out of Zion a deliv- 
erer, and he shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob." 
The great point in this text is that there shall come 
a deliverer who shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob . 
What my friend can find in that text to support his 
theory, while he takes the position that no one, not 
even Christ, can ever deliver any sinner from the 
consequences of his sins, I am not able to see. I call 
attention to Rom. ii. 28, 29 : "But he is not a Jew, 
which is one outwardly ; neither is that circumcision 
which is outward in the flesh : but he is a Jew, which 
is one inwardly ; and circumcision is that of the heart, 
in the spirit, and not in the letter, whose praise is not 
of men, but of God." Those who are Jews inwardly 
are spiritual Jews, having the circumcision of the 
heart, both Jews and Gentiles. Ungodliness is turned 
away from them by the deliverer, for he "put away 
their sin by the sacrifice of himself." These are the 
people represented hy Jacob, of whom God says, 
"Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated." 

It is through the channel opened up by Christ that 
the mercy of God flows down to guilty sinners. It is 
by him that ungodliness shall be turned away from 
Jacob or spiritual Israel. They had gone astray from 
him like sheep, and the Lord laid on him all their 
iniquity. This channel of mere}' is opened for all 
poor hungry, thirsty sinners. All that mourn on 



130 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

account of sin are to be comforted by the assurance 
that Jesus has bought and redeemed them by his pre- 
cious blood. To be merciful to one is to treat him 
better than he deserves to be treated. God says of 
his people, "I will be merciful to their unrighteous- 
ness, and their sins and their iniquities I will remem- 
ber no more." Oh, what mercy is thus shown to 
guilty ones through Jesus' blood ! On the other 
side of this question it has been argued that God 
treats no sinner any better than he deserves. Then 
God shows mercy to none. What a blessing it is 
that through the merits of the shed blood of our Lord 
Jesus Christ there is a balm for aching hearts who 
mourn over the guilt of sin ! Washed in the blood of 
the Lamb, made clean through its cleansing efficacy, 
the heaven born host of redeemed sinners will forever 
chant the praises of him who gave himself to redeem 
them from all their sins. [Time expired. 



MR. HUGHES' SEVENTH SPEECH. 



Gentlemen Moderators: — I have but two more 
speeches on this Proposition, so without waiting to 
reply to my friend's last speech, I will introduce my 
remaining affirmative arguments. 

XIII. Abrahamic Promise. 

Gen. xxii. 15-18. "And the angel of the Lord called unto 
Abraham out of heaven the second time, and said, By my- 
self have I sworn, saith the Lord, for because thou hast 
done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only 
son, that in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I 



MR. HUGHES* SEVENTH SPEECH. 131 

will multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven, and as the 
sand which is upon the sea shore, and thy seed shall possess 
the gate of his enemies ; and in thy seed shall all the nations 
of the earth be blessed." 

Gen. xii. 3. "And in thy seed shall all the families of the 
earth be blessed." 

Acts iii. 25. "And in thy seed shall the kindreds of the 
earth be blessed. " 

1. The promise is universal in its terms. It is 
"all nations," "all families," "all kindreds of the 
earth." Language could not be more comprehensive. 

2. The seed of Abraham is Christ. "And thy 
seed which is Christ." Gal. iii. 16. And the prom- 
ised blessing includes all the benefits to be conferred 
upon men through Christ in this world and the future. 

3. It includes salvation from sin in justification by 
faith, and in turning men away from their iniquities. 
"Unto you first God, having raised up his son Jesus, 
sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of 
you from his iniquities." Acts iii. 26. "So then they 
which be of faith, are blessed with faithful Abraham." 
Gal. iii, 8, 9. 

4. It includes the resurrection to life and immor- 
tality. "And now I stand and am judged for the 
hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers, 
unto which promise the twelve tribes, instantly serv- 
ing God day and night hope to come. For which 
hope's sake, king Agrippa, I am accused of the Jews. 
Why should it be thought a thing incredible with 
you that God should raise the dead?" Acts xxvi. 6-8. 
The resurrection of all mankind to immortality is 
then a promised blessing, and it cannot prove an end- 
less curse to any. 



132 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

5. Will the promise be fulfilled? I answer, just as 
surely as we have "two immutable things, in which 
it is impossible for God to lie," his word confirmed 
by an oath. Heb. xi. 13-20. God himself speaks of 
it as a matter fixed in the counsels of heaven: "See- 
ing that Abraham shall surely become a great and 
mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall 
be blessed in him. Gen. xviii. 18. 

XIV. Jesus' Reply to the Saducees. 

' 'Jesus answering said unto them, the children of this 
world marry, and are given in marriage; but they which 
shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world and the res- 
urrection from the dead neither marry, nor are given in 
marriage; neither can they die any more; for they are equal 
unto the angels ; and are the children of God, being the 
children of the resurrection. Now that the dead are raised, 
even Moses showed at the bush, when he calleth the Lord, 
the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of 
Jacob. For he is not the God of the dead but of the living ; 
for all live unto him." Luke xx. 34-38. 

A record is also found in Matt. xxii. 18-32, and 
Mark. xii. 18-27. 

1 . Jesus here teaches the resurrection of ' 'the dead. ' ' 
In Matthew it is; "But as touching the resurrection 
oi the dead" In Mark, "And as touching the dead, 
that they rise." Winer in his Greek grammar of the 
New Testament defines ki hoi nekroi" the phrase ren- 
dered "the dead," as a definite multitude. And Dr. 
Whedon in his comments on these words says ; "The 
resurrection of the dead would signify the resurrection 
of the totality of the race." So I take the distinct 
position that Jesus here speaks of a universal resurrec- 
tion. 






MR. HUGHES' SEVENTH SPEECH. 1 33 

2. The resurrection is to be to an equality with 
the angels ; and men are to be the children of God in 
the very highest sense, "being the children of the res- 
urrection." This can be no less than the final holi- 
ness of all men. 

3 . The resurrection is to a state of immortality ; 
"Neither can they die any more." It is to an endless 
state. 

The Greek word katarizo rendered ''accounted 
worthy' ' does not limit the resurrection to a part of 
mankind. It is rendered in the Revised Version, 
"But they that are accounted worthy," and all are 
accounted worthy just as surely as the phrase "the 
dead" means a definite multitude. And all three 
Evangelists use that phrase here. The Emphatic 
Diaglott renders the word in question, "But those 
having been accounted worthy." And so the passage 
would read ; "The children of this world marry and 
are given in marriage, but they having been accounted 
worthy to obtain thac world and the resurrection of 
the dead" &c. And so the children of this world are 
accounted worthy of the resurrection from the dead. 

XV. Argument. 

My 15th and last argument is the resurrection and 
consummation as taught by St Paul, in I Cor. xv. 22- 
28. 

"For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made 
alive. But every man in his own order; Christ the first 
fruits ; afterwards they that are Christ's at his coming. 
Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the 
kingdom to God, even the Father ; when he shall have put 
down all rule and all authority and power. For he must 
reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last 



134 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

enemy that shall be destroyed is death. For he hath put all 
things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put 
under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put 
all things under him. And when all things shall be subdued 
unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto 
him that put all things under him, that God may be all in 
all." 

i. The apostle here teaches the resurrection of all 
mankind. 

2. That all shall be made alive in Christ. "As in 
Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. ' ' 

3. The phrase in Christ means &j n stifled state. ''He 
that is in Christ is a newcreatue." II Cor. v. 17. To 
be made alive in Christ is to be made alive ' 'in the 
image of the heavenly." Verse 49. It is the exact 
equivalent of Rom. v. 19, where it is said, "Many — all 
mankind — shall be made righteous." It is a complete 
fulfillment of the Abrahamic promise that all the fam- 
ilies of the earth shall be blessed in his seed, which 
is Christ. 

4 By the resurrection of all mankind to life and 
immortality shall death the last enemy be destroyed. 
Death being destroyed by a universal resurrection, it 
being the last enemy, it follows that there will be no 
enemies to man beyond the resurrection. The last effort 
of destroying power gives to all men immortality. It 
follows, therefore, that men are not in the catalogue 
of enemies destroyed. 

6. The resurrection will be to a state of glory, incor- 
ruption, and power, in spiritual bodies. " It is sown 
in corruption, it is raised in incorruption ; it is sown 
in dishonor, it is raised in glory ; it is sown in weak- 
ness, it is raised in power ; it is sown a natural body, 
it is raised a spiritual body," Verses 42 — 44. 



/ 

MR. HUGHES' SEVENTH SPEECH. 1 35 

7. We are taught here that there is to be a subjec- 
tion to Christ in such universal sense, that God the 
Father only is excepted, and in such manner that God 
will be ''all in all." Verse 28. And as all are to be 
made alive in Christ, all men to be subdued to him, 
and God in the final consummation "all in all, the 
only conclusion is the final holiness and happiness of 
the whole family of mankind. 

8. This resurrection is to a state of incorruptibility 
and immortality , and so it is to a final and unending 
condition. 

I will now pay some attention to my friend's last 
speech. He has a very great deal to say about my 
"system," and introduces a great many negative 
arguments. But he has very little to" say about my 
affirmative arguments. There can be but one reason 
for all this. It is much easier to do the work he is 
doing than to reply to arguments he cannot meet, and 
more than that, cannot be met. His course is a tacit 
admission of that fact. He could not proclaim it 
louder on the house tops ! 

How does it affect the proposition in hand, if I do 
not believe in the forgiveness of just punishment for 
sin ? Suppose God does forgive punishment, is that 
in the way of universal forgiveness ? Just how does 
his logic hitch on here ? 

But suppose I am altogether wrong about the 
atonement and he is right about how it affects the sin- 
ner, and I prove b)^ the scriptures that it is universal; 
is not universal salvation just as sure as the decree of 
Jehovah? Take a passage already quoted with its 
connection: "For this is good and acceptable in the 



136 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

sight of God our Saviour, who will have all men to be 
saved, and come unto the knowledge of the truth. 
For there is one God, and one Mediator between God 
and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a 
ransom for all to be testified in due time." Take the 
very construction of this passage. God set over 
against men, whom God wills the salvation of, accord- 
ing to his love for the world, whom he sent his Son 
to save, and whom therefore he gave for a ransom. 
Or take the text in I. John ii. 2 : "Who is a propitia- 
tion for our sins, and not for ours only, but for the 
sins of the whole world." Christians are spoken of 
separate and apart from the world , but the world is 
included in the propitiation. I gave the general usage 
of the term world, demonstrating its universal mean- 
ing in my fourth speech, but to this hour my friend 
has never had the courage to face it, even in a small 
degree to reply to it. Here I hold he is in a corner 
and cannot extricate himself, whatever he may say 
about my system. Note the following syllogysm : 

1. All for whom Christ died will be saved. 

2. But Christ died for all mankind. 

3. Therefore all mankind will be saved. 

The first premise my friend believes ; the second I 
have proved ; the conclusion he cannot escape try he 
never so hard. 

Now would not Brother Daily do a much more 
legitimate work if he would take up my arguments, 
and show if possible their f allacy ? If he should do 
that, my "system" would fall at once, and he would 
have done what has never yet been done. But as long 
as he fights shy of these arguments his work falls of 



MR. HUGHES SEVENTH SPEECH. 137 

its own weight ; for there are thousands who believe 
in the "final restitution of all things," who neverthe- 
less believe in the vicarious atonement and in the for- 
giveness of punishment. My arguments are before 
him, every point numbered and convenient to his hand. 

As to Origen, there can be no doubt about his Uni- 
versalism. It is true he was vilely misrepresented by 
his enemies. But this same Rufinus bears witness to 
that effect and quotes passages given by Origen in 
proof of the final salvation of all : as, Ps. ex. 1, I Cor. 
xv. 25 — 28, Ps. lxxii. 1. And Mosheim says of Ori- 
gen, "Certainly if any man deserves to stand first in 
the catalogue of saints and martyrs, and to be annu- 
ally held up as an example of Christians, this is the 
man. For, except the apostles of Jesus Christ, and 
their companions, I know of no one, among all those 
enrolled as saints, who excelled him in virtue and holi- 
ness." Historical Commentary on Christianity, Vol- 
II. page 149. 

To say that I have "admitted" that the early 
church was not called the Universalist church, is to 
*mply that I had held sometime to the contrary. But 
he knows better. And he ought to treat me as 
though I have at least common sense. But can he 
give the name of the church then? Was it the 
Primitive Baptist Church, ox any other modern church? 
Is this a case of a blind Samson pulling down the 
temple to his own destruction? 

But why should any particular doctrine give name 
to the ancient church? Or what has this to do with 
any particular doctrine? He says the schools of that 
day taught error. But I am inclined to think that 



138 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

those teachers of young ministers knew more about 
the real teachings of Christ than Bro. Daily. 

Universalism did decline during the dark ages, and 
it did revive again as light, knowledge, and liberty be- 
gan to shed their blessings upon humanity. But be it 
remembered, I made no insinuations against those 
who do not receive it. Friend Daily's bombast to the 
contrary notwithstanding. 

To assert the resurrection of the unjust does not 
prove that they will be raised unjust, since "All shall 
be made alive in Christ.'' I Cor. xv. 22. I believe all 
will die sinful to the extent, "if we say we have no sin, 
we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.,, 
I John i, 8. And there is need of a change after death. 

I have taken the position that the atonement is 
moral in its effects, and saves from sin through faith 
and repentance, and I believe it will be effectual in 
bringing us to God ; and that the free gift will come 
upon all mm ttnto justification of life, and that "the 
many shall be made righteous." Rom, v. 18, 19. He 
makes no distinction between the forgiveness of sin 
and the forgiveness of punishment. And so the cu- 
ring of sin means the saving from punishment that 
sin deserves. When Christ cured the sick did he save 
them from the pains of sickness ? I think not. Cure 
the disease and all its pains cease as a consequence. 

But if God will punish Israel for all their iniquities, 
will he forgive none of them? Is it true that "God 
will reward every man according to his deeds" (Rom. 
ii. 6.) ? If so, how does he forgive the punishment 
for their bad deeds ? I insist that nowhere in the 
Bible do we read of the forgiveness of punishment. It 



MR. HUGHES' SEVENTH SPEECH. 1 39 

is the forgiveness of sin; and "whatsoever a man 
soweth, that shall he also reap." Gal. vi. 7. 

I do not pervert Heb. xii. 8, for it says distinctly 
of chastisement, "whereof all are partakers," and there 
are no bastards. ' 'Whom the I^ord loveth he chasten - 
eth , ' ' and God loves all men . 

He denies that Ps. xcix. 8 teaches that the persons 
who were punished were forgiven. Well, that text 
says, "Thou wast a God that forgavest them, though 
thou tookest vengeance of their inventions." He and 
the psalmist for it. I believe the latter. It is a 
strange way to forgive a debt to collect it from anoth- 
er party. When Christ assumed the sins of the elect 
he became the sinner and they became innocent. He 
became "guilty and had a sense of the divine wrath." 
He deserved the penalty and received it to the full. 
And seeing the penalty was executed, where was the 
forgiveness? This is but a scheme to justify the un- 
godly, and condemn the just, and I commend to my 
friend Prov. xvii. 15 : 

' 'He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth 
the just, even they both are an abomination to the Lord." 

I explained my understanding of the word "doub- 
le," Isa. xl. 2, as a just or full amount, and it is not 
very giacious in Bro. Daily to represent that I believe 
sinners are to be punished to "double extent, "of what 
they deserve. Bishop Home says, "Very frequently a 
certain or an indefinite number is put for an uncertain 
or an indefinite number. Thus we find double for 
for much or sufficient in Isa.xl. 2," However it is 
the prophet who uses that word, as does Jer.xvi. 18. 



140 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

Just now I am debating the question of punishment, 
only to give a little diversion to my friend. He says, 
' 'Sinners enjoy a sinful state and a sinful life here," 
and asks if they will not enjoy it hereafter. Certainly 
according to his position. For he says there will be 
no change after death. He says sin is their natural 
element, and that they enjoy it. So I think the best 
we can say is, that hell will be their heaven! But I 
think he is mistaken. I believe that "The wa}' of the 
transgressor is hard." Prov. xiii. 15. And that 
"there is no peace to the w T icked." And I wish my 
friend to notice that God says so. Isa. lvii. 20, 21. 

Punishment does not restore men to favor only so 
far as it induces repentance, and so brings forgiveness. 

I have not advocated punishment as bringing 
purity, as I have before explained. But he will keep 
right on saying that I do, whatever may be my 
denial! It is my friend who teaches that the divine 
vengeance and fire burns out the sin in the elect ; and 
he is the man to explain how punishment brings 
purity. 

In reply to my argument on Rom. viii. 18, 23, 
he denys the word ' 'creature' ' refers to the original 
creation. But where is your proof? He says it 
means the new or spiritial creation. That is pure as- 
sertion. I demand the proof! Bro. Daily your as- 
sertions have gone to protest; you have over drawn 
your credit. When was the new creation made subject 
to vanity? And how does the newly converted Christ- 
ians make up the "whole creation" which groans and 
travails in pain until the time of the Apostles? The 
word ktisis when applied to christians has the word 



MR. HUGHES' SEVENTH SPEECH. 141 

"new" before it. "He that is in Christ is a new 
creature." II Cor. v. 17. Christians in a special 
sense have hope. But there is also a general sense in 
which the whole groaning, travailing creation has the 
instinctive hope of deliverance. The general sense of 
the word creature is found in Col. i. 15, "Who is the 
image of the invisible God the first born of every 
creature; and in the commission. "Preach the gospel to 
every creature." Math. xvi. 15. 

In nrv friend's thirteenth argument, he refers to 
Rev. v. 9, referring to redemption as he thinks 
limited. "Out of every kindred, and every tongue, 
and every people, and every nation." If it were not 
for the limiting phrase "out of," would that phrase- 
ology then mean all mankind? I have been giving him 
those phrases all along in this debate, as "all the kind- 
reds of the earth. ' "All nations wh)m thou hast 
made," "every knee, every tongue." In none of 
these is found the limiting word, "out of." I de- 
mand then to know what does limit them ! Is there 
any thing in the texts, their contents, or the nature of 
the subjects to limit them? If not I claim the natural 
force and meaning of those phrases in accordance with 
the well known laws of language. And I say there 
has been no attempt to meet mj T position here, and 
logically the whole question turns at this point. But 
let us look at Rev. v. 9. There was a time when the 
limitation was just, but it is not always to be true. 

Christ's reign had but just commenced. The King- 
dom was but as a grain of mustard seed, and he is to 
reign until he subdues all things to himself. But the 
Revelator has another view, and the number has in- 



142 FIRST PROPOSITION 

creased to "ten thousand times ten thousand, and 
thousands of thousands. And yet there is something 
far grander and more glorious; the ver\ thing 
towards which my whole argument has been looking 
forward. "And every creature which is in heaven, 
and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as 
are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I say- 
ing, Blessing and honor, and glory, and power, be un- 
to him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the 
Ivamb forever and ever." Rev. v. 13. I submit this 
was a most unfortunate reference for my friend, and 
here is the fulfillment of my proposition. No limita- 
tion here. 

All the point there is in Brother Daily's 14th and 
15th arguments is in the assertion that according to 
God's word there is no change in the future world. 
But this again is only assertion. One may not be a 
child of God spiritually at one time, and become so at 
another. Christ's reign is a progressive one. All 
who die in Adam, will be made alive in Christ. Christ 
preached to spirits in prison, when he himself was a 
spirit. He preached to the dead spoken of in contrast 
with "men in the flesh," that they might live accord- 
ing to God in the spirit. The whole of Christain 
antiquity had but one interpretation of these texts for 
the first four hundred years. 

He says it was spiritual Israel referred to by Paul in 
saying "all Israel shall be saved." But it was blind- 
ed Israel he speaks of. "Bh'ndness is happened to 
Israel, and so all Israel shall be saved." — [Time 
expired. 



MR. DAILY'S SEVENTH REPLY. 143 

MR. DAILY'S SEVENTH REPEY. 



Gentleman Moderators And Respected Au- 
dience:- As this is to be my last speech in which I 
purpose making any new arguments, I intend to come 
to my remaining negative arguments as soon as I can. 

I am surprised that my learned friend has more to 
say about punishment being forgiven! He claims that 
punishment is not forgiven, and accuses me of believ- 
ing it is forgiven. Forgiveness cannot be applied to 
punishment, for punishment is the infliction of the 
penalty for sin, whatever that penalty is. It is not 
punishment until inflicted, and so there is no such 
thing as forgiveness of it. Evidently he is confused 
when he speaks of the forgiveness of punish7ne?it. If he 
were not something of a scholar, this blunder would 
be no great surprise to me. I suppose him to mean 
release from deserved punishment, but forgive- 
ness is not at all applicable to such release. It applies 
only to sins or offences, and necessarily secures release 
from deserved punishment. So the scriptures declare, 
"In whom we have redemption through his blood, the 
forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his 
grace." Eph. 1. 7. It is the redemption price of 
Christ's blood as a ransom for sinners that secures the 
forgiveness of sins and a consequent release from de- 
served punishment. 

To make any foundation for his argument, that all 
the human family will be saved because, as he says, 
Christ died for all of them, he is forced to suppose 
that he is wrong about the atonement and that I am 



144 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

right! He knows he does not believe that Christ's 
death was an}^ ransom for sinners or that there was 
any atonement made by his death. All he says about 
the "moral effects" of the atonement amounts to 
nothing if there was no atonement made. How that 
death has any thing to do with bringing sinners to 
faith and repentance he cannot show. The death of 
the thief on the cross had as much to do in the salva- 
tion of sinners as the death of Christ according to 
Universalism. If there is a man in America who can 
show how Christ's death saves sinners, that man is 
Mr. Hughes, for he is the ablest man they have. As 
he cannot tell we are forced to conclude that no Uni- 
versalist can. He does not really believe either ' of 
the premises of his syllogysm, for he does not believe 
Christ died for any one So he is compelled to sup- 
pose I am right and he is wrong about the atonement 
to give any semblance of force to his argument. 

But I enter my denial that the scriptures used by 
him in supposed proof of the second premise of his 
syllogysm (on the supposition that I am right about 
the atonement and he is wrong) mean every individual 
member of the human family. Let us take I Tim. 
ii. 4: "Who will have all men to be saved," &c. 
Paul had exhorted Timothy to make supplications and 
prayers for all men, giving thanks for them, by which 
is not meant every individual, for prayer is forbidden 
to be made for such as have "sinned unto death," (I 
John v. 16) and we are not to give thanks for wicked 
men and persecutors. All classes of men are meant as 
the following verse shows, "For kings, and all that are 
in authority." So God will have all men to be saved, 



MR. DAILY'S SEVENTH REPLY. 145 

that is all sorts or ranks of men, men of every rank 
and quality, kings and peasants, rich and poor, bond 
and free. The passage, "Who gave himself a ram son 
for all," is fatal to his theory, for he denies that any 
ram son was made for sinners. He gave himself a 
ransom for all the children of the promise represented 
by Jacob whom God loved, and for whom Christ died, 
as he said, "I lay down my life for the sheep." 

Take the other passage, "And he is the propitiation 
for our sins, and not for ours only, but also fcr the 
sins of the whole world." Propitiation means satis- 
faction rendered by an atonement. This rr^ friend 
does not believe. He argues that our sins are pro- 
pitiated for by our suffering all" they deserve ourselves. 
But he is now supposing I am right and he is wrong to 
enable him to build an argument on this text. The 
meaning is, not only the Jews, for John was a Jew 
as well as those directly addressed, but also for the 
Gentiles as "the world". Christ is the advocate of 
all those for whom he is the propitiation, for it is 
said, "We have an advocate with the Father, Christ 
Jesus the righteous." Verse 1. There is a "world" 
for which Christ did not pray (John xvii. 9), so he is 
not the advocate for that "world." He is not, then, 
their propitiation. As to my friend's argument that 
world always means the people separate and apart 
from the righteous, I will say that is true when thes e 
two classes are considered together, but that is no 
proof that it is so in all cases. I deny that the term 
is so used here, for the two classes are not considered- 

Origen was "enchanted 03^ the charms of the Pla- 
tonic philosophy, set it up as the test of all religions, 



146 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

and imagined that the reasons for each doctrine were 
to be found in that favorite philosophy, and their na- 
ture and extent to be determined by it." Mosheim's 
History, Vol. I. page 86. So Brother Hughes is 
welcome to all the comfort he can get from claiming 
Origen. But he waxes warm in referring to my 
calling attention to his admission that the church was 
not called the Universalist church in the apostolic day, 
saying it implied that he had "held sometime to the 
contrary," and claiming that I ought to treat him as 
though he has common sense at least. This is an 
admission that he has never held that the church was 
called the Universalist church. But he not only ad- 
mitted it was not called that, but admitted it was not 
in existence as an organized body. This is his lan- 
guage, "But the Universalist church did not exist in 
the early days of Christianity. This I know very well 
so far as the organized church is concerned." See 
page 83 of this book. Then not onfy was the church 
not known by the name Universalist church, but such 
a church did not exist as an organized church. That 
being true the doctrine of this proposition was not the 
doctrine of Christ and his apostles. I have called 
upon him to show that any church made any declara- 
tion of faith which included the doctrine of Univer- 
salism prior to the days of John Murray. He re- 
mains silent, and will remain so so far as that demand 
is concerned. He may wax as warm as he pleases, 
he cannot escape the force of this argument, which 
destroys all his claim to being apostolic in his teaching 
of the doctrine of Universalism. 



MR. DAILY'S SEVENTH REPLY. 147 

All will die sinful, he says, and argues there is need 
of a change after death. This change he has argued 
is. affected by Christ's preaching to the, spirits in the 
future world. None will be changed here, then, b}^ 
the preaching of those sent out under the commission. 
Yet some will be just after death and others unjust, 
and will remain so until the resurrection! It seems 
to be his opinion that the change will be made by the 
resurrection, and yet he argues that preaching brings 
about the change, and }^et it comes through faith and 
repentance, but not until every one is punished as 
much as he should be! He says punishment restores 
men to favor "so far as it induces repentance, 
and so brings forgiveness." Well, if punishment 
restores men to favor to the extent that it results in 
forgiveness, then how does the death of Christ or the 
preaching of the gospel have any thing to do with 
bringing about this result, and why is any resurrection 
necessary? Let him answer. 

Are sinners punished in their physical bodies Avith 
suffering in this life, or in their consience, or both, in 
proportion to their wickedness? He knows they are 
not. Do they that love sin delight in it more than 
they could enjoy trying to live a religious life? If the 
things they endure here are meant for punishment, and 
this state is to be continued in the future world, may 
we not conclude they will prefer it there to a pure life? 
If they enjoy that state hereafter as they do here, will 
punishment of that kind ever induce repentance and 
bring forgiveness? . . 

I showed most conclusively that the creature men- 
tioned in Rom. viii. 19 — 22 is used with reference to 



1 48 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

those who have the Spirit of God dwelling in them, 
by which they cry, Abba, Father, which bears witness 
with their spirits that they are the children of God. 
These are subjected in hope, while others have no 
hope (I. Thes. iv. 13), and all unchanged sinners 
have no hope and are without God in the world (Eph. 
ii. 12). They are made subject to vanity through 
the sinfulness of the body, but they groan within 
themselves while they wait for the redemption of 
their bodies in the resurrection. 

He quotes, "He that justifieth the wicked, and he 
that condemneth the just, even they both are abomina- 
tion to the Lord," to try to make it appear that Christ 
being made to be sin for us, thus bearing our sins in 
his own body on the tree, and giving himself for us f 
the just for the unjust, would all be "an abomination 
to the Lord." It is not, however, for it God's own 
arrangement, as taught in his word. 

In the 5th chapter of Rev. the four and twenty 
elders represent the redeemed family of God, who 
were redeemed out of every kindred, and tongue, and 
people, and nation. This eternal redemption was ob- 
tained before Christ went to heaven, or when he died 
on the cross. Heb. ix. 12. The ten thousand times 
ten thousand and thousands of thousands, were the 
angels, who said nothing about being redeemed. 
Every creature in heaven, and on earth, and under 
the earth, and in the sea, embrace all objects of 
creation, which declare by their very existence the 
power and wisdom and riches and strength and honor 
and glory of God and the Lamb, just as "the heavens 
declare the glory of God, and the firmament sheweth 



MR. DAILY S SEVENTH REPLY. 1 49 

his handiwork." Not one word is said by these ob- 
jects of creation about being redeemed. None spoke 
of being redeemed except the ones redeemed out of 
every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation. 
As these were redeemed out of these classes, which 
embrace the entire human race as classes, all these 
classes were not redeemed. 

I shall now attend to his argument on the Abra- 
hamic promise. He assumes that, as the promise 
embraces all nations, all families, and all kindreds of 
the earth, every individual member of the human 
family is embraced in the promise and thus included 
in the blessing. It is not really required of me to 
prove this inference false, for he has not proved it 
true and he cannot prove it. All families and nations 
may be blessed and yet every individual member of all 
families and nations not be blessed. But I propose 
to prove it false and turn the argument against him. 

Gal. iii. 7 9: "Know ye therefore that they which 
are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham- 
And the scriptures, foreseeing that God would justify 
the heathen through faith, preached the gospel be- 
fore unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be 
blessed. So then they that be of faith are blessed 
with faithful Abraham." 

"All men have not faith." II Thess. iii 2. My 
opponent will forever fail to prove that all will ever 
have faith. This proves to a conclusive demonstra- 
tion that the blessings promised to Abraham are res- 
tricted. This fact is further shown in the address 
made to Abraham in Gen. xii. 3 : "I will bless them 
that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee.'' 



150 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

In Gal. iii. 29, the apostle shows the promise to be 
restricted. "And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abra- 
ham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." if 
all were Christ's he would not have used this form of 
expression. He would have said, "As all are Christ's, 
all are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the 
promise." The construction of the sentence clearly 
implies that all are not Christ's, and therefore not 
Abraham's seed, and heirs according to promise. If 
he denies this he does so at the risk of his reputation 
for scholarship. "The children of the flesh, these are 
net the children of God, but the children of the 
promise are counted for the seed." This is proof 
positive and unmistakable that all are not the children 
of God, and so are not the children of the promise. 

Another inference drawn by him is that this prom- 
ise involves the resurrection to life and immortality. 
Now will he tell us what is raised to life and immor- 
tality ? The spirit he says is the child of God and 
has always been, possessing the divine image which it 
has never lost. Then the spirit already posseses life 
and immortality. What, then, is raised to life and 
and immortality ? He talks a great deal about a 
resurrection, and seems to believe that the immortal 
part of man will be raised to immortality! He seems 
to think there is no period between the death of each 
and the resurrection, and this resurrection will be a 
progressive affair, and that eac.i spirit was destitute of 
life and of immortality till raised to it ; that it was 
dead and mortal till raised. Then I suppose the 
death of the righteous and wicked are alike, and a 
like change will be needed in each class in the future 



MR. DAILY'S SEVENTH REPLY. I51 

world. I demand that he make these things clear in 
his next speech if he can. 

In his thirteenth argument, which is based on 
Christ's reply to the Sadducees, he labors very hard 
to show that the expression, "they which shall be ac= 
counted worthy to obtain that world and the resur- 
rection of the dead/' is not restrictive. This involves 
him in the absurdit}' of arguing that restricted lan- 
guage is not restricted. It seems he would regard his 
scholorship too highly to risk it in such a venture. 
It is evident that the desire to bolster up a sinking 
cause predominates over every other consideration 
with my friend ! The rendering given in the Em- 
phatic Diaglott, in which a participial phrase "having 
been accounted worthy," is used instead of the clause, 
"which shall be accounted worthy," is not at all in 
his favor, for the phrase is restrictive as well as the 
clause. 

He says Jesus here teaches the resurrection of the 
dead, emphasizing "the dead." I demand that he 
tell us what is dead after the spirit separates from the 
body, the spirit or the body ! If it is the body, what 
does he mean by the resurrection of "the dead?" 

His last argument is based upon the teaching found 
in the 15th chapter of I Cor. : "As in Adam all die, 
even so in Christ shall all be made alive." The res- 
urrection of the body is referred to in this passage. 
This is evident from the fact that mention is made of 
the resurrection of Christ's body in this connection. 
Paul speaks of the first Adam and the last Adam. 
Each of these is spoken of as a representative. As all 
connected with the first Adam die in consequence of 



152 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

his fall, so all connected with the last Adam, Christ, 
shall be made alive in the resurrection. Such is 
plainly indicated in the 23d verse. This proves there 
is a restriction, and that some will not be Christ's at 
his coming. My friend can deny this only at the 
peril of his reputation for scholarship. We are not 
left in doubt about some being Christ's while others 
are not his. Gal. v. 24 

"They that are Christ's have crucified the flesh 
with its affections and lusts." It follows that those 
who never crucify the flesh with its affections and 
lusts are not Christ's. But that some are not Christ's 
is proved in a most positive way by Rom. viii. 9 : 
"But ye are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if so be 
that the Spirit God of dwell in you. Now if any 
man have not the Spirit of Christ he is none of his." 
The resurrection taught in this chapter is restricted 
to those who are Christ's. The teaching of this pas- 
sage is, As in Adam all that are his die, even so in 
Christ all that are his shall be made alive. 

As further proof that Paul does not teach that all 
who die in Adam shall be raised to incorruption, 
glory, honor, immortality and victory, I call attention 
to the address in the 50th verse: "Now this I say* 
brethren." He said to these brethren, "As we have 
borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the 
image of the heavenly." The brethren were the 
saints at Rome, who were beloved of God and called 
to be saints. Chap, i, verse 7. So I reason he was 
alluding to people who are beloved of God and called 
to be saints. These are the ones who will be Christ's 
at his coming. 



MR. DAILY'S SEVENTH REPLY. I 53 

He argues that death is to be destroyed. I ask 
him this question : Will death ever be destroyed if 
the body that is held by death is never raised ? If 
the only part of man that dies at death, that goes 
down into death, is never raised to life, will death 
ever be destroyed ? Is the mere lifting up of the 
living any destruction of death ? These are questions 
for him to think about. I demand a plain answer to 
them in his next speech. 

Negative Argument XVI. My sixteenth negative 
argument is based upon the unpardonable sin. 

Matt. xii. 31, 32: "Wherefore I say unto you, all manner 
of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men, but the 
blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto 
men. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of 
man, it shall be forgiven him : but whosoever speaketh 
against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven him, neither 
in this world, neither in the world to come." 

Mark hi. 29 : * 'But he that shall blaspheme against the 
Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eter- 
nal damnation." 

Mark's statement of the language of Christ is very 
clear, and sustains Matthew's record that the sins 
spoken of here are not to be forgiven in this world or 
in the world to come, and Jesus asserts that those 
who commit it are in danger of eternal damnation. 
The word danger is from the Greek enochos, which 
signifies liable to or subject to. They could not be 
liable to what did not exist. As those who commit 
this sin have never forgiveness but are liable or sub- 
ject to eternal damnation, it follows that some will 
not be finally holy and happy. If eternal damnation 
does not exist, and none are liable to such a state, 



154 FIRST PROPOSITION. ' 

then Christ was a deceiver. It is necessary to prove 
him such to sustain the doctrine of Universalism.- 

Negative Argument XVII. My last argument in 
the negative of this proposition is that the destruction 
of the wicked by sudden death, as the antediluvians 
by the flood, the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah 
by fire, and the overthrow of Pharaoh and his hosts 
by waters of the sea, is the greatest blessings that 
could befall them according to this doctrine, for it 
ushers them out of this world of suffering to one 
where Christ will be their preacher, by whom they 
will doubtless soon be converted from a sinful course 
and brought to enjoy endless holiness and happiness, 
while the righteous will be left to suffer on here, only 
to die sinful at last and go into the future world to be 
changed just as the wicked will be. The wicked had 
the decided advantage of Noah and IyOt and the 
Israelites, for they were wafted on the waters and the 
fire to a state where their advantages far excelled the 
righteous, while the latter had to continue to suffer 
in this world of sin and sorrow. I will read a poem 
t hat illustrates this in a clear way. 

Thus Pharoah and his mighty hosts 

Had God-like honors given : 
A pleasant breeze brought them with ease 

And took them safe to heaven. 

So all the filthy Sodomites, 

When God bade I,ot retire, 
Went in a thrice to paradise, 

On rapid wings of fire. 



MR. DAILY'S SEVENTH REPEY. 155 

Likewise the guilty Canaanites, 

To Joshua's sword were given : 
The sun stood still that he might kill 

And pack them off to heaven. 

God saw those villians were too bad 

To own that fruitful land : 
He therefore took the rascals up 

To dwell at his right hand. 

The men who lived before the flood 

Were made to feel the rod ; 
They missed the ark, but, like a lark, 

Were washed right up to God. 

But Noah he, because you see, 

Much grace to him was given, 
Was forced to toil and till the soil, 

And work his way to heaven. 

The wicked Jews, who did refuse, 

The Lord's command to do, 
Were hurried straight to heaven's gate, 

By Titus and his crew. 

How happy is the sinner's state, 

When he from earth is driven ; 
He knows it is his certain fate 

To go direct to heaven. 

There's Judas too, another Jew, 
Whom some suppose accursed ; 

Yet with a cord he beat his Lord, 
And got to heaven first. 



I56 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

I want yonr attention now to a kind of summary of 
some of the things we been considering. I begin this 
summary in this speech so I will have time to finish 
it in the next. We differ in regard to the process by 
which people are made holy and happy. He says 
that punishment inflicted upon the sinner "induces 
repentance and so brings forgiveness," and that in 
this way men are restored to favor. I claim that the 
sins of those are forgiven whose sins the Lord does 
not impute to them, and whose sins are covered by 
the atonement of Christ, as declared by David and 
quoted and explained by Paul. "Even as David also 
describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom 
God imputeth righteousness without works, saying, 
Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and 
whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom 
the Lord will not impute sins. " He has no use for 
any covering made by Christ's atonement, and so can 
give no explanation of such passages as teach this 
important truth. All the covering he has for sin is 
the infliction of punishment upon the sinner, which 
he admits does not bring holi?iess though he says it 
admits to favor! 

In the second place we differ as to what constitutes 
the human family. He argues that the human family 
will be brought to holiness and happiness, and con- 
tends that the spirits only are God's children who 
will be brought to that state. Then he believes the 
human family to consist of a family of invisible spirits, 
the bodies being the houses in which the human 
family live. He argues that these spirits are immor- 
tal and have never lost the divine image, and that the 



MR. HUGHES EIGHTH SPEECH. 1 57 

bod}^ will never be raised, and yet contends that all 
will be resurrected to life and immortality ; that is, 
that which possesses life and immortality will be raised 
to life and immortality! ! I contend that the body 
constitutes the essential part of man, that it was 
c alled man before receiving" the breath of life at all, 
that human beings are born male and female, and 
that human beings never would have had any exis- 
tence if human bodies had not been made. — [Time 
expired. 



MR HUGHES' EIGHTH SPEECH. 

Gentlemen Moderators and Kespected Auditors : 
— In this, my closing address on this Proposition, I wish 
first to note some things in the speech you have just 
heard, and then pass to a brief recapitulation. 
. Brother Daily favors you with a poem, as he calls it, 
which he no doubt thinks quite ornate and classical. It 
is not in line with my way of debating, but to show him 
that his doctrine is open to repartee, I will quote a few 
verses which are a much truer representation of his creed 
than his poem is of mine. 

''Praise be the Lord I pardoned am, 
My spouse, good soul, is pardoned, too ; 

We shall both be saved through Christ the Lamb, 
In spite of all we can do. 



158 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

Our children, six in number all, 

By pious parents sanctified, 
Are safe in grace, whatever befall, 

For who shall Christ's elect divide ? 

And others, 'tis naught to me, 

Who shall be saved, or who be damned. 

But grace shall still exalted be, 

And saints rejoice tho' hell be crammed." 

He knows that his poem is a misrepresentation of Uni- 
versalism, and all out of order. Take the case of the 
Antediluvians. It is a long interval between the flood 
and Christ's preaching to them, and they still in prison. 
And he knows the use I made of that case. 

He seems to think it would be an awful thing for those 
people to have mercy shown them some time in the future 
state, but a most gracious one for God to thrust them 
into a never ending hell. He seems to think rather that, 

"The breath of God, his angry breath, 

►Supplies and fans the fire, 
Where sinners taste the second death, 

And would, but can't expire." 

That evidently would be more to his taste. And how 
about those miserable creatures, hated of God before they 
were born, sent into the world "spiritually bound with 
chains, shut up in darkness, and in a prison house," hated 
here and to be hated forever. If God be such a God, 
there is no need of his Santanic Majesty. No wonder 
Bunyan said, "I blessed the condition of the dog or 
toad, because they had no soul to perish under the weight 
of an everlasting hell." 

I will pass his continuous references to the resurrec- 



MR. HUGHES EIGHTH SPEECH. 1 59 

tion of the body to his proposition where they belong. I 
am not so fond of mixing things as my friend. His 
fine criticism on the forgiveness of punishment is a mere 
splitting of hairs. He represented punishment as a debt, 
and then the debt forgiven. 

On the atonement he says that I believe there is no 
benefit to man in the death of Christ, and that I do not 
believe that Christ is in any way a ransom, or a propitia- 
tion, all of which I brand as false. Who authorized him 
to tell what T believe? I have said nothing of the kind. 
I have told him I believe in the atonement as moral in 
its effects, and the "propitiation through faith in his 
blood.'' Rom. iii. 25. And it is not to appease the wrath 
of Clod but to reconcile man. Rom. v. 11; II Cor. v. 18- 
20. But 1 do say, that so far as the issue between us on 
this proposition is concerned, it makes no difference 
which view of the atonement is held, the result is in- 
evitable if I prove that Christ died for all. And the 
syllogism brought him to a sense of his situation, hence 
his great outcry. And that Christ is a propitiation for 
the sins of the whole world I most abundantly proved. 

In his Pilgrimage of a Stranger, Eld. Daily says, "It 
is an established law of philology, the correctness of 
which is universally admitted, that a word must be taken 
in its literal sense "unless the context imperiously de- 
mands a different meaning." Page 259. I have taken 
those texts in their literal meaning as the words in dis- 
pute, and hold that there is nothing in the context to 
restrict them. It devolves upon him to show the re- 
striction. He admits that when the two classes are con- 
sidered together it means the people apart from the 
righteous. Well, it is so used in I John ii. 2: "He ts 



FIRST PROPOSITION. 160 

the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but 
for the sins of the whole world." And so this text settles 
the question as to Christ's death for all men, and also 
the truth of my proposition. 

His attempt to limit prayer for all men to all classes 
of men is a desperate one. If you pray for all classes 
who are you leaving out? But he says, we are not to 
pray for the sin unto death. But the words are, ""I 
do not say he shall pray for it." But Jesus prayed for 
his enemies on the cross, "Father, forgive them, for they 
know not what they do." Praying for his disciples in 
particular, he does not pray for the world (John xvii. 
21), but further on he prays for all who shall believe on 
him through their word, "that the avorld may believe 
thou hast sent me." John xvii. 21. So Jesus did pray 
for the world. It is strange that Paul should limit 
prayer by exhorting prayer for all men! And also 
strange how "learning" can understand the words "kings 
and all in authority" to mean all classes, and then base 
an important construction on it. That sort of a contrac- 
tion and expansion will be new to scholarship ! 

When God makes promise he uniformy uses universal 
terms; as, all nations, the world, all men, etc., when, ac- 
cording to Brother Daily, he only means the elect. Does 
the Almighty intend to deceive men? But he does de- 
ceive all but a mere handful if my brother is right ! And 
should any one in despair inquire, "does any man care 
for my soul," of one thing he may be sure, God does not 
care only to make damnation more sure. 

But Rev. v. 13, where all creatures praise God only in 
metaphor, as all by their very existence praise him and 
the Lamb, just as the heavens declare his glory. But 



MR. HUGHES' EIGHTH SPEECH . l6l 

how about those creatures represented by Esau, for whom 
God has an unchangeable hatred? Does their "very ex- 
istence" glorify God ? Evidently my friend does not feel 
on this subject as Dr. Albert Barnes: "Had man the 
view the eternal Father had, we would weep that God 
is laid under the necessity to defile and mar the beauty 
of the universe with the smoke of an eternal hell." 

But as to the Abrahamic promise, all do not believe, 
and only those who have faith are blessed with faithful 
Abraham. True, then; and so far the promise was ful- 
filled. But has not many more believed since then, and 
become the children of Abraham, and blessed with him ? 
and when all nations are blessed in him, will not all be 
the children of Abraham? We are told that "Abraham 
believed God." But what did Abraham believe ? He be- 
lieved the promise, "In thee and thy seed shall all the 
families of the earth be blessed." And that promise will 
be fulfilled just as sure as God cannot lie. 

If the translation of the Diaglott is correct: "They 
having been accounted worthy;" that is, the children of 
this world, then there is no limitation to the resurrection 
in this passage. And let my friend pay some attention 
to the quotation made from Winer's Greek grammar on 
the phrase "the dead" as a definite multitude. 

The reply you have heard on I. Cor. xv. 20-28, was an 
effort to restrict the resurrection in this chapter to a 
part of mankind only, and he relies on the words, "They 
that are Christ's at his coming.^ There are two senses 
in which men are Christ's, ownership and discipleship. 
All were given to Christ, and when all are subdued to 
Christ, and made alive in him, they are his in a spiritual 
sense. 



1 62 FIRSY PROPOSITION. 

It must be understood there is no other resurrection 
spoken of here, and that this was the end. There was 
no judgment here. Christ's reign is ended, and he has 
delivered up his kingdom to God the Father. It is the 
consummation, and "God is all in all." There is no hint 
that there is anything adverse to God or Christ. Death, 
the last enemy, is destroyed, which cannot be without a 
universal resurrection. And it is utterly preposterous 
to speak of any limit here. The clause, "As in Adam all 
die," my friend must admit means all men; and Paul 
asserts "Even so in Christ shall all be made alive." It 
is the same in both cases, and it is only the exigences of 
a peculiar case that requires anything different. 

I would remind the brother that an apostle may ad- 
dress a church on a subject which pertains to all hu- 
manity. I refer to verse 50 quoted by him. "Now this 
I say, brethren, flesh and blood cannot inherit the king- 
dom of God." This is a universal truth, and a most un- 
fortunate reference for his position and scholarship. 
But further the apostle speaks of the change of the liv- 
ing, and says, "the dead shall be raised incorruptible." 
Note the phrase "the dead," and let his learning ex- 
pose the authority I have given him on that phrase. But 
again, the apostle speaks of death being swallowed up in 
victory, verse 54, which could not be a partial resur- 
rection. 

Beferring to his argument on the sin against the 
Holy Spirit; there will be a discussion of the word 
eternal in the next proposition, and I well defer it till 
then. The phrase, "Neither in this world nor in the 
world to come," literally translated would be, "Neither 
in this age nor the coming." So in Mark, "hath not 
forgiveness for the age." It is also said, "that in the 



MR. HUGHES' EIGHTH SPEECH. 1 63 

ages to come God will show the exceeding riches of his 
grace." Eph. ii. 7. And Paul teaches that "where sin 
abounded grace did much more abound," ' and there is 
not even one sin that shall defeat grace or go beyond it. 
According to the Jewish form of speech it only teaches 
that all other sins may more easily or readily be for- 
given than the sin against the Holy Ghost. 

I come now to my recapitulation. My Proposition is 
as follows: The scriptures teach that all the human 
family will finally be brought to enjoy a state of endless 
holiness and happiness. 

My first argument was based on the nature of God. 
"God is love." I Jno. 4:8. This is the divine nature, 
and so God from his very nature loves all men. The 
scriptures teach that he loves them when they do not 
love him, even when "dead in sin." Ep. 2 :4-5. He 
cannot hate because he is love. Jesus tells us that "God 
so loved the world that he sent his Son to be the Savior 
of the world." Jno. 3 :16, 17. And so clear and em- 
phatic are his teachings on this point that his disciples 
said: "We know that this is the Christ the Savior of 
the world." Jno. 4 :42. The word world is here used in 
its most natural sense, in all these and related passages, 
and there is nothing in the context to limit them. 

An attempt was made to turn the force of this argu- 
ment by quoting, "vengeance belongs to God." But I 
showed that this only means his right to punish. And 
the usage of the word I showed in Eom. 13 :4, where the 
magistrate is said to be "God's minister to thee for good, 
a revenger to execute wrath on him that doeth evil." 

Again he quoted, "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have 



164 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

I hated/' claiming that Esau represents the non-elect, 
whom God hates now, and will hate in all the future, but 
T showed that this is to be understood nationally and 
providentially, and relates to their descendants. "Na- 
tions," and especially the Edomites, are mentioned in 
their history. Gen. 25 : 3 ; Mai. 1 :3, 4. Esau did not 
serve Jacob, nor did he ever humble himself to the dust 
as Jacob did in his guilt before him. The election that 
Paul speaks of is national. The Jew rejected, the Gen- 
tile chosen. "They were enemies as concerning the 
gospel, but as concerning the election "beloved/' Kev. 
11 :28. There is no eternal reprobation here. 

My second argument was on the universal fatherhood 
of God. Paul teachers, "To us there is but the one God 
the Father." "One God and Father of all." Eph. 4:6. 
And Jesus taught the "multitude and disciples," "One 
is your Father which is in heaven." Matt, 23 :1, 9. Sin- 
ners are therefore the children of God, as well as the 
righteous. . As were the heathen idolaters the offspring 
of God. Ac. 17 :28, 29. Men are the children of God 
not by mere creation, but because God created them "in 
his image," imparting to them the divine nature, and so 
relating himself to them. "God is spirit," and the 
"Father of spirits," and so is related to men in their 
spiritual nature. Jno. 4:24; Heb. 12:9. If they are 
called the children of the evil one, it relates to character, 
and not to them as the devil's offspring. This character- 
istic relationship is referred to when men are com- 
manded to love their enemies, that they might be the 
children of their Father in heaven. Matt. 5 :44, 45. 

To this argument and the first it was replied, God is 
as much the loving Father now as he ever will be, and if 



mr. hughes' eighth speech. 165 

there is any virtue in the argument, all ought to be saved 
now, but the}' are not. But this reply fails because it 
takes no account of the fact that God works progres- 
sively in both the natural and spiritual world. Jesus 
illustrates one by the other. It is "first the blade, then 
the ear, and after that ripe corn jn the ear." Matt. 4 : 
26-28. In the moral world God works by means, but his 
purposes are none the less sure on that account. If my 
friend is right, creation would have been at a standstill 
ages ago ! 

My third argument was from Paul's sermon on Mars 
hill. Ac. 17 :22-31. He affirms that "God made of one 
all nations of men to dwell on all the face of the earth," 
and he is a sovereign over men to the intent "that they 
should seel- the Lord, if haply they may mid him," as 
all are his offspring, the whole drift of his sermon being 
that God has one purpose concerning all men, their 
salvation. I cannot remember that my brother referred 
to this. 

My fourth argument was on the purpose of the sub- 
jection of the world to man, to be consummated in the 
moral -sense finally through Christ. All things were put 
in subjection to man in such a universal sense, "that 
there was nothing not put under him." But though 
"we see not yet all things put under him, we have full 
assurance given in Jesus," who tasted death for "every 
man." And as man the race is the subject here, so it is 
man universally for whom "Jesus tasted death," and 
there can be no limit put to that phrase here, and it 
settles the case in this controversy. 

My fifth argument was drawn from the mission and 
ministry of Christ, "He came to seek and sa.YQ that 



1 66 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

which was lost." Luke 19 :10. To save the chief est of 
sinners. 1 Tim. 1 :15. And he was given dominion 
over the "dead and the living," and ability to subdue all 
things to himself. Phil. 3 :21. So equally extensive was^ 
his ministry. How else could he fulfil his mission ? He 
went in spirit after his crucifixion, and preached to 
spirits in prison, who were aforetime disobedient in the 
days of Noah. "The gospel was preached to the dead, 
that they might be judged according to men in the 
flesh, but live according to God in the spirit." 1 Pet. 
3 :18 — 20, 4:6. The preaching was to spirits by Christ's 
own spirit, to the dead spoken of in contrast to men in 
the flesh. But one construction is possible to these 
passages: the opening of Christ's ministry in the spirit 
world. The one construction held in the ancient church 
for four hundred years after Christ. 

My sixth and seventh arguments were from the words 
of Jesus, "If T be lifted from the earth, T will draw all 
men unto me." Jno. 12:32. And as "all things were 
given to Christ," so all thus given should come to him, 
and not be cast out." Jno. 3 :35, 6 :37. These passages 
show the final result and triumph of Christ's ministry. 

My eighth argument was from those passages whicli 
teach the universal reconcilation of the world to God. 
2 Cor. 5 : 14-19. "God was in Christ reconciling the 
world unto himself." And "Having made peace by the 
blood of his cross to reconcile all things to himself, both 
which are on earth and in heaven." These are universal 
terms, and I recall no attempted reply from my brother. 
My ninth argument was on the universal submission 
of all things to Christ, as taught in Phil. 2:9-11, an- 
other proof my friend failed to meet, But here we have 






MR. HUGHES' EIGHTH SPEECH. 167 

the most positive declaration that at, rather "in the 
name of Jesus every knee should bow of things in 
heaven, and things in the earth, and things under the 
earth: and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is 
Lord to the glory of God the Father." There is no 
possible limitation here. I re-enforced this passage by 
the words of the prophet: "I have sworn by myself, 
the words have gone out of my mouth in righteousness, 
and shall not return, that unto me every knee shall bow, 
every tongue shall swear, surely shall say in the Lord 
have I righteousness and strength." Isa. 45 :23, 24. 
Paul also quotes these words to show that every one of 
us shall give an account of himself to God: another 
irrefutable proof of its universality, and that God's 
judgments issue in victory, the "righteousness and 
strength" of all mankind. 

My tenth argument was on the universal righteous- 
ness taught in Eom. 5 :12, 18, 19. The reign of sin is 
universal. "All have sinned." The reign of grace is to 
be equally universal. Kay, rather the reign of grace is 
to superabound that of sin, and the "free gift is to come 
upon all men to the justification of life." "And as by 
one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so 
by the obedience of one the many shall be made right- 
ous." Universal righteousness means universal salva- 
tion. 

My eleventh argument was from Eom. 8 :18-23, the 
deliverance of the creature, man, into the glorious lib- 
erty of the children of God. Just so sure as the crea- 
tine here is maa, just so sure is my proposition true. 
And the natural meaning of the word is "creation, the 
thing created," as in Col. 1 :15, Mark 16 :15, It can only- 



1 68 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

mean here man the intelligent creation. It can mean 
Christians only when the word new is applied, making 
it the "new creation/' and that phrase occurs but twice 
in the New Testament, and here Christians are spoken 
of as separate and apart from the groaning creation 
which is to be delivered into the glorious liberty of the 
children of God. 

My twelfth argument is on the salvation of both Jew 
and Gentile, the two great divisions of mankind. Eom. 
11 :25-36. "Blindness in part is happened unto Israel, 
until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in, and so all 
Israel shall be saved." "It avails nothing to say that 
"spiritual Israel" is meant here, when it is manifest 
that "blinded Israel" is the one expressly mentioned. 
Further the apostle says, "He hath concluded all (both 
Jew and Gentile) in unbelief, that he may have mercy 
upon all." "For of him (by creation) and through him 
(by sustaining power) and to him (as the final end) 
are all things. To whom be glory forever." 

My thirteenth argument was on the Abrahamic prom- 
ise that all nations of the earth should be blessed in 
Christ. Gen. 12:1-3, 22:15-18; Acts 3:25, 26. The 
promise is in expressely universal terms. "All nations, 
families and kindreds of the earth." It includes justifi- 
cation by faith, turning away from iniquities, and the 
resurrection from the dead, assuring us that the resur- 
rection is a blessing, and not an everlasting curse to the 
larger part of mankind; and so means in its ultimate 
fulfillment the salvation of all men. 

The fourteenth argument was founded upon Luke 20 : 
27-38 and parallel passages. Here Christ teaches the 
"resurrection of the dead/' which I showed by eminent 



MR. HUGHES' EIGHTH SPEECH. 1 69 

authorities means "the dead as a definite multitude/' all 
the dead. And there was no attempt to meet this point. 
And I showed that it would be a perversion, therefore, 
of Jesus' words to restrict them to a partial resurrection, 
since he taught that all "the dead live unto God. Ver. 38. 
"The children of this world having been accounted wor- 
thy of the resurrection of the dead, cannot die any more, 
and are the children of God, being the children of the 
resurrection." 

My fifteenth and last argument was from the resur- 
rection and consummation as taught in 1 Cor. 15 :20-28. 
Here we have those invincible words : "As in Adam all 
die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." There may 
be as many orders as these human beings, but "all are 
to be in Christ, and all are his." They were given to 
him, he purchased them by his blood, and he has con- 
quered all their enmity. As the first fruit was a sample 
of the whole harvest, so Christ is a sample of the harvest 
of all the dead." "If the first fruit be holy, the lump is 
also holy." Eom. 11 :16. This is the end. Christ's reign 
is finished. He has destroyed all enemies. Death, the 
last enemy, is destroyed. There are no others. Tears 
are wiped from all faces. All things are subdued unto 
him, and he becomes subject to God the Father, and 
God is all in all. 

Thanking you, my friends, for your patient hearing, I 
leave the issue with you. 

( Time expired. 



I70 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

MR. DAILY'S EIGHTH REPLY. 

Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen, 
Respected Opponent — You may be in the condition a 
congregation was to whom a preacher preached three 
hours. The preacher was speaking to a friend about his 
long sermon, and was asked: "Didn't it worry you?" 
"No," said the preacher, "it didn't worry me, but I tell 
you the congregation was worried." I intend to get 
through with this speech in just one-half hour, and you 
know that will not be very long. 

As to the "poems" we has produced, I purpose leaving 
them with the people to decide which has been the 
truer representation of our respective doctrines. As to 
the Antediluvians, if the punishment they suffered here 
was only continued in the future world as here, they 
only preferred it to a holy life just as they did here, and 
so the preaching of Christ to them would have been 
unavailing if lie had preached to them according to my 
friend's position. I will not repeat my reply to his 
absurd position on that point, but will merely remind 
you that I challenged him to show that Christ continued 
to go to the place of the lost and preach to them to the 
end of the world. Even if he could prove that the 
Antediluvians were preached to between the death and 
the ascension of Christ, which he could not do if bis 
eternal destiny were suspended upon it, he could not 
show that any other class were so favored after the 
ascension of Christ. He resorted to this to try to prove 
a moral change after death, and built his argument on a 
mere assumption, without the shadow of proof. 

He says he will pass my references to the resurrection 



MR. DAILY'S EIGHTH REPLY. 171 

of the body to my proposition where they belong. I 
only referred to that in reply to positions taken by him, 
and it is well he passed the matter by. You remember 
he argued that there would be a resurrection to a state 
of life and immortality. I asked him if the spirit, which 
he says was created in the image of God and never lost 
that image, possessing life and immortality already, 
could be resurrected to a state of immortality ; if im- 
mortality could be raised to immortality! He claimed 
that death would be destroyed when the immortal spirit 
was resurrected to immortality ! I asked him if death 
would be destroyed if the body which had died is never 
raised! I asked him if the lifting up of the living would 
be any destruction of death! I demanded a plain an- 
swer. He passed it all by! The reason is plain. He 
says he is not fond of mixing things. He may not be 
fond of it, but he has things so mixed here that he will 
never extricate himself from the mixture! He may pass 
it by till the next proposition, but he will be in the same 
hole there! He will never get out of it! 

He denies saying there is no ransom in the death of 
Christ and that it is of no benefit to man. He brands 
me as a falsifier, claiming I charged him with taking 
that position and affirming that Christ's death was no 
propitiation. I challenged him to show how Christ's 
death could be a ransom or propitiation for sin, if it 
does not save sinners from punishment, from sinning, 
from death, from hell, or from anything else! If all 
sins are punished in the sinners who commit them, and 
sinners are not saved from anything, I want to know in 
what sense the death of Christ can be considered as a 
ransom or propitiation! I have demanded that he tell 



172 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

how the death of Christ can be moral in its effects and 
commend the love of God to man when that death was 
entirely useless! I have wanted to know how his death 
reconciles sinners to God when they are punishel for all 
their sins just as much as they ought to be, and satisfac- 
tion is rendered for their sins by that punishment alone! 
He has failed, utterly failed to show that there was any 
atonement made by the death of Christ. He has not met 
these points, because he could not meet them. I am 
laying no blame upon him for this failure, for he has 
done the best he could, and doubtless he has made a 
stronger fight than any other Universalist could have 
made. 

He claims that two classes are considered together in 
the text, "He is the propitiation for our sins, and not 
for ours only, but for the sins of the whole world." I 
have answered his position on that, and only wish to say 
here that he again supposes I am right about the atone- 
ment and he is wrong to give any force to his argument. 
This he is compelled to do or he would not do it. When 
Christ said, "that the world may believe that thou hast 
sent me," he assumes that he means all the people in the 
world, all the human race. As to that, the world might 
be made to believe that God had sent him, and yet not 
have that faith which works by love. That is no proof 
that Christ prayed for the whole world or all mankind. 
He said, "I pray not for the world." He only prayed 
for those who believed in him then, and for all that 
should believe in him. I have challenged my friend to 
show that all universally would finally believe in Christ. 
This he has failed to do. 

He made no attempt to reply to my argument that 



MR. DAILY'S EIGHTH REPLY. 1 73 

none mentioned in Eev. v. said anything about being re- 
deemed except the ones who sang the new song. The 
fact that these were redeemed out of every kindred, 
tongue, people and nation proves to a demonstration 
that all of these classes were not redeemed. To this 
point he has not replied. It stands against the doctrine 
of his proposition. 

The restriction of the promise to Abraham was so 
plain that my friend touched that matter very lightly. 
He says the promise will be fulfilled to all because all 
will believe in Christ. This is assuming the very point 
to be proved. I showed that "the children of the prom- 
ise are counted for the seed," and that "the children of 
the flesh are not the children of God." To this he has 
attempted no reply, and so it stands as a complete 
refutation of his argument on the iibrahamic promise. 

As to the clause, "They which shall be accounted 
worthy to obtain that world and the resurrection from 
the dead," he knows the language is restrictive, and so 
he seeks to make it appear universal by giving the ren- 
dering of the Emphatic Diaglott, "But those having 
been accounted worthy." The participial phrase is but 
another form of the expanded clause given in King 
James' translation, and is equally restrictive. Winer's 
rendering the phrase "hoi nekroi" as a definite multi- 
tude does not make it universal for the word definite 
means bounded by certain limits, limited, determinate. 
He makes some light of "scholarship," but his scholar- 
ship is sufficient to enable him to see the force of this. 

"They that are Christ's at his coming" is restrictive 
and he knows it. So he attempts to dodge by saying 
that there are two senses in which men are Christ's, 



174 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

ownership and discipleship. But he argues that this is 
at a time when Christ's reign will he entirely ended. 
Then all mentioned will then be his, both by ownership 
and discipleship. As it is still restricted, we conclude 
that the number mentioned as being Christ's is re- 
stricted both as to ownership and discipleship. Then 
all will not be Christ's at his coming, either in the sense 
of ownership or discipleship. 

After saying there would be a discussion of the word 
eternal in the next proposition, and that he would there- 
fore defer noticing the "sin against the Holy Ghost" 
till then, he goes on to notice it. He says the phrase 
"Neither in this world nor in the world to come," liter- 
ally translated, would be, "Neither in this age nor the 
age coming." I suppose by the age coming is meant 
the age after death, so it amounts to the same. He 
says it only teaches that all other sins may be more easily 
or readily forgiven than the sin against the Holy Ghost. 
The fact is, and he knows it, this teaches that this par- 
ticular sin will never be forgiven, either in this world 
or age, or the world or age to come. God will "show 
the exceeding riches of his grace'' to "the vessels of 
mercy which he had afore prepared unto glory," but the 
sin against the Holy Ghost he will never forgive. So 
those who have committed that sin will never be brought 
to enjoy a state of endless holiness and happiness. 

I will now continue the review of the arguments 
which I began in my former speech. We differ in re- 
gard to what constitutes us children of God. He argued 
in the beginning that creation of our spirits in the 
"image of God" made us all the children of God. Then 
when pressed somewhat on that point, he said that ere- 



Mr. daily's eighth reply. i 75 

ation alone did not make us his children. I then asked 
him what more was done to make us children than cre- 
ation : what was done in addition to creation to make 
us the children of God. That question he passed by in 
silence, as I expected him to do. 

AVe differ in regard to what satisfies for sin. He 
claims our being punished ourselves for our sins renders 
satisfaction. I have shown that Christ was "made to be 
sin for us," that he "bore our sins in his own body on 
the cross/ 7 that he "put away our sins by the sacrifice 
of himself," and that it is "by his stripes we are healed."* 
All this has been set aside by my opponent as utterly 
useless, and he has placed the responsibility on the 
sinner to render satisfaction for his own sins by punish- 
ment inflicted on him. This renders it necessary for 
every sinner to make his own atonement for his sins, and 
sets aside the atonement of Christ as being altogether 
unnecessary. 

We agree that the spirits of the unjust enter the 
future world in an unjustified state. He claims that 
they will become just at some period before the resur- 
rection by repentance and faith, but I proved there 
would be a resurrection of the unjust as well as the just, 
which shows they will not be made just by repentance 
and faith at any period before the resurrection. 

He has argued that the spirits will be raised to life 
and immortality, at the same time claiming that all our 
spirits are the children of God, created in his image, 
possessing life and immortality. I have asked him how 
death could be swallowed up in victory if that which 
dies is never brought to life. I have asked him how 
immortality could ever be raised to immortality. He 



1 76 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

has failed to meet these points. He will have an oppor- 
tunity in the discussion of the next proposition to meet 
them. But he will fail then as now. 

He admitted that the Universal ist church did not 
exist as an organized body prior to the days of John 
Murray, so my argument stands that if Christ and his 
apostles taught Universalism the church was a Univer- 
salist church in their day. Whether called by that name 
or not, it was a TJniversalist church as an organized 
body if that doctrine be true. But as it did not exist in 
that day as an organized body, it follows that the doc- 
trine of this proposition is false. 

I showed that only those who become servants of God 
in this life and have . their fruit unto holiness are 
brought to enjoy in the end everlasting life. I proved 
this by Bom. vi. 22. My opponent passed this by in 
silence. His position is that all will enjoy that blessed 
state in the end whether they bear the fruit of holiness 
here or not. 

I proved that no one would ever see or enter into the 
kingdom of God without being born again. I showed 
that God begets, which constitutes him the Father of 
those who are begotten of him. Those who are not born 
of God and die in that state cannot see the kingdom of 
God or enter into it. He claimed that being born again 
makes us God's children characteristically, but not in 
relationship. Then he was unable to tell what was 
needed in addition to creation to make us children of 
God, at the same time claiming that creation alone 
does not. 

He said I was "splitting hairs" in making my crit- 
icism on his repeated reference to the "forgiveness of 






MR. DAILY S EIGHTH REPLY. 1 77 

punishment." He made no effort to clear up his blunder 
in such misapplication of the term forgiveness. In his 
floundering under that criticism he said I. had "repre- 
sented punishment as a debt, and then the debt for- 
given." This mistake is a result of his confusion, I 
never so represented punishment. I represented sin as a 
debt, and the debt forgiven, and offered an argument on 
that which remains unanswered to this hour.,; Jesus 
pays the debt and forgives the sinner, but in. the system 
of my friend there is no place for forgiveness of sins, 
because every sinner has to pay the full debt himselfv ; So 
Christ does nothing in the, world for him. v 

By Matt. x. 29, and Luke xii. 4, 5, I proved that both 
soul and body of some would suffer in hell after the 
death of the body. In this the Saviour sanctioned and 
confirmed the opinion of the Jews that the soul and body 
would be cast into hell after the death of the body. That 
being true, he taught that some would not be brought to 
enjoy an endless state of holiness and happiness. , 

I argued that those who die in their sins cannot go 
where Christ went after death. The application of ..my 
opponent of the same language used in the address to 
the disciples was shown to be erroneous from the fact 
that it was not said they should die in their sins, and 
it was not said to the unbelieving Jews that they should 
come to him afterward. To this no answer has been at- 
tempted. 

I have shown that sinners are not punished in this 
life in proportion to their sins, either in their. bodies or 
their conscience. Some of the greatest sinners suffer 
less than many righteous ones in their bodies, and the 
farther one goes in sin the less punishment he feels in 



I78 FIRST PROPOSITION. 

his hardened conscience. To this argument my friend 
has paid no attention. It is a death blow to his theory 
of punishment. 

I gave five absurd conclusions drawn from his position 
on the circumstance of the rich man and Lazarus. I 
proved by that circumstance that Jesus taught in plain 
language what the Jews already believed in regard to 
future punishment. Instead of correcting their opinion, 
which he would have done had it been false, he confirmed 
and illustrated that very doctrine in a familiar way. 
This proves that all will not be finally brought to enjoy 
a state of holiness and happiness. 

I proved that some are known as the children of God 
by him, while others are not thus known, and that this 
same distinction will exist at the last day, when the great 
separation shall take place. To some he will say, "I 
never knew you." Of his people it is said, 'The founda- 
tion of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord 
knoweth them that are his.'" As he always knows them 
that are his, and as he never knew some, it follows that 
some are not his and never will be. On the love of God 
my friend argued that God loves all exactly alike, but 
has utterly failed to reconcile the plain statement of 
God's with that view, "Jacob have I loved, but Esau 
have I hated." I showed that this illustrates the doc- 
trine of election, the children of the promise being count- 
ed for the seed, and not the children of the flesh, or those 
born of the flesh only, for they are not the children of 
God. This proves the representation to be of individuals 
and not nations. Those represented by Jacob include all 
the "poor in spirit," all that "hunger and thirst after 
righteousness," all that "mourn" on account of sin. 



MR. DAILY'S KIGHTH REPLY. 179 

While God never knew those as his children who live in 
the love and practice of sin and die in that state, yet he 
has always known those whom I have described as his 
children. He has loved them with an everlasting love, 
while he has hated those represented by Esau, and with 
his loving kindness he draws them. Thus the. founda- 
tion of God standeth sure, having this seal, the Lord 
knoweth them that are his. We can well sing, "How firm 
a foundation," for the foundation stands upon the never 
ending and changeless knowledge of God, who knows 
them that are his. (Time expired.) 



SECOND PROPOSITION : 

THE SCRIPTURES TEACH THAT THERE WILL BE A RESURREC- 
TION IN A SPIRITUAL STATE OF THE NATURAL BODIES OF ALL 
THE DEAD OF THE ADAMIC RACE, A PART OF WHOM WILL SUFFER 
ENDLESS PUNISHMENT. 

ME, DAILY'S FIRST SPEECH. 
Gentlemen Moderators, Respected Audience and 
Worthy Opponent: We have reasons this morning to 
be grateful to God that we are permitted to meet for the 
purpose of continuing our investigation of his holy word. 
I feel to be especially grateful that it is my privilege to 
appear before you to introduce my arguments in sup- 
port of the proposition you have just heard read. I am 
sure that I am sincerely desirous to know what is the real 
truth relative to this important question. If what is 
stated by the terms of this proposition is true, we all 
ought to believe it ; if what is thus stated is untrue, none 
of us ought to believe it. Be assured that 

"Truth crushed to earth shall rise again ; 

The eternal years of God are hers ; 
But error,, smitten, writhes in pain. 

And dies amid her worshipers." 
It becomes my duty to define the terms of my proposi- 
tion, that there may be no misunderstanding respecting 
it. The proposition reads : The Scriptures teach that 



MR. daily's first speech. i8i 

there will be a resurrection in a spiritual state of the 
natural bo.dies of all the dead of the Adamic race, part 
of whom will suffer endless punishment. By the term 
"Scriptures" I mean the sacred canon, the books com- 
posing the Old and New Testaments, forming the vol- 
ume which we call the Bible, the word Bible signifying 
"'the book." While I may make reference to other works 
in the course of this investigation, by way oi argument, 
I shall have regard only to the teaching of the sacred 
word of God for proof of the positions I take. It is my 
purpose not to base my arguments on assumptions, not 
to undertake to support my arguments by presuming 
that the Bible teaches thus and so, but to bring forward 
proof, irrefutable proof found in its sacred pages. By 
the term "Resurrection," I mean there will be a raising 
to life of that which is dead; a returning to life of that 
which had faUen in death. By the term, "in a spiritual 
state," T merely mean that the body, when raised, will 
not be material as it had been before the resurrection, 
but that it will be immaterial. By the term spiritual I 
do not mean a holy or divine nature, but simply an im- 
material state. Such a change will be made in the spe- 
cial resurrection of the saints that they will be made holy 
and divine in their nature, but as the general resurrec- 
tion of natural bodies and the endless punishment of the 
wicked are the points involved in this discussion, I shall 
confine myself to the general resurrection of the natural 
b< dies into an immaterial state. By the term, "natural 
bodies/' I mean the material bodies; the body that was 
created of the dust of the earth and called the first man 
Adam. By the term, "all the dead of the Adamic race," 
I mean all those who shall have died before the end of 



1 82 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

the world comes. By the term, "endless punishment," I 
mean they will endure a punishment that will continue 
forever or without end. As to the degree or nature of 
that punishment I shall have nothing to say, as that is 
not a part of my proposition. The issue between Mr. 
Hughes and me, on this part of my proposition, is, 
whether or not any will suffer endless punishment. That 
some will is what I am to affirm and what he is to deny. 
He is also to deny that the bodies of any will ever be 
raised. 

In thus plainly defining the terms of my proposition 
I take my stand upon it as my support. In the first 
place, as an introduction to my regular line of argument 
on this question, I propose to show that the real man 
was created of the dust of the earth and is of the earth 
earthy, and that the spirit was created and given to the 
man as his spirit — that the spirit thus given him is the 
spirit of the man. 

Job xxxii. 8: "There is a spirit in man, and the inspira- 
tion of the Almighty giveth them understanding." 

This teaches that man has a spirit within him. It 
makes a distinction between the spirit of man and the 
man, the spirit of man being in him. It does not say 
there is a man in the body, as Brother Hughes seems to 
believe, that the spirit is the man possessing the body, 
but that the body is the man in which the spirit of the 
man dwells. 

Prov. xviii. 14: "The spirit of a man will sustain his in- 
firmity." 

In this text that which is affected by the infirmity is 
the man considered apart from his spirit, a distinction 
being made between the man and his spirit. "The 



MR. DAILY'S FIRST SPEECH. 183 

spirit of a man will sustain his/' the man's, "infirmi- 
ties." 

Isaiah xxvi. 9: "With my soul have I desired thee in the 
night: yea, with my spirit within me will I seek thee early." 

In reading I have emphasized the important points 
in the language of the person speaking, that I may make, 
the thought emphatic and impress it upon your minds 
that the person talking speaks of the soul that he has 
and of the spirit that is within him, he being the person 
that is speaking of his soul and his spirit. 

I Cor. ii. 11: "For what man knoweth the things of a 
man save the spirit of man which is in him." 

Now, who is the man ? Is it the spirit ? Not accord- 
ing to that text. Instead of the spirit being the man, it 
is the spirit of the man. 

Eccle. iii. 21: "Who knoweth the spirit of the man that 
goeth upward and the spirit of the beast that goeth down- 
ward to the earth?" 

In speaking of the beast, do we mean to be understood 
as speaking of the spirit of the beast? If so, none of us 
have ever seen a beast. We have a 1 ! seen beasts, but none 
of us ever saw the spirit of a beast. So when we speak 
of a beast we mean that which is visible. When we speak 
of the spirit of the beast we do not mean the beast itself. 
So when speaking of the man we speak of that which is 
visible, and in speaking of the spirit of the man we mean 
that which the man has that is invisible, and not the man 
himself. , 

In I Kings xvii. 19-22, we have the account of the 
prophet Elijah raising the widow's son from the dead. 
The widow's son had died, and in dying his spirit went 
out of his body and his body was dead. The widow was 
grief -stricken and the sympathy of Elijah was aroused, 



1 8 4 ' SECOND PR OPOSITION . 

Doubtless the power of God's omnipotent Spirit came 
upon. him, and he requested her to give him her son, not 
his spirit, but the son himself . The child that was lying 
in a state of death, that child was the widow's son. The 
son was. given over to Elijah and he took him, her son, 
out of her bosom and carried him into a loft, where he 
abode,, and laid him upon his own bed. "And he cried 
unto the Lord, and said, Lord my God, hast thou also 
brought evil upon this widow with whom I sojourn, by 
slaying her son?, And he stretched himself upon the 
child three times, and cried unto the Lord, and said, 
Lord, my God, I pray thee, let this child's soul come into 
him. again. And the Lord heard the voice of Elijah ; 
and the soul of the child came into him again, and he 
revived." That which is here called the child, the 
widow's son, is the body. Instead of the spirit being the 
child and that which was dead merely his body, the body 
was the" child' whose spirit went out of him and came 
into him again. 

I might give many passages in addition to these in 
positive proof' that human beings are visible beings who 
possess human spirits, but I shall let these suffice. I have 
proved unanswerably my position on the issue introduced 
by my opponent in the very beginning of the discussion 
of the first proposition in regard to what constitutes the 
real human family. According to the proof I have ad- 
vanced, in beholding this audience I see visible members 
of the human family. I perceive that there are sitting 
in these seats human beings, members of the human 
family, whom I see with these eyes of mine. Nowhere, 
in all the word of God, is the spirit considered the hu- 
man being separate and apart from the body. 



MR. DAILY'S FIRST SPEECH. 1 85 

Having proved this point relative to an introduction 
to my regular line of arguments, I now pass to a second 
point to be considered, which is that man is a created be- 
ing; that God created him of the dust of the ground; 
that lie was the first man Adam ; and that no being- 
known as man had an existence before him. I intend to 
prove that even God's children were included in this cre- 
ation, and were made of the dust ; that the human family - 
consist alone of this creation, being of the earth earthy; 
that to this earthy man was given the law, that he trans- 
gressed it. and died as a result of his transgression ; and 
that the entire posterity of Adam was involved in sin 
and death by his transgression, as a result of which they 
all die;. 

1. Man is a created being, created by God of the dust 
of the earth, there being no personage known as man- 
that had an existence before him. 

Gen. i. 26, 27: "And God said, Let us make man in our 
own image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion 
over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air^ and 
over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creep- 
ing thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created, 
man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; 
male and female created he them." 

Did the- inspired writer represent God as saying, Let. 
us make the spirit of man in our own image to dwell in- 
his body? The language will admit of no such interpre- 
tation. It is declared that in creating them in his image 
he created. them male and female.. It is, therefore, : the 
visible beings, distinguished by sex, that were created -in 
the image of God, and not simply the invisible spirits 
that were given them. This image was of a moral nature 
which distinguished man from the brute creation, in 
which nature man was pronounced good, and very good. 



1 86 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

Gen. ii. 7: "And the Lord God formed man of the dust 
of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of 
life; and man became a living soul." 

The Lord God formed man male and female, under- 
stand, not spirits in which there is no distinction of sex, 
but male and female, of the dust of the ground. The 
man thus formed was man before the breath of life was 
breathed into him. Man did not exist when God said, 
Let us make man. He did not exist until he was formed 
out of the dust of the ground. 

Gen. v. 1, 2: "This is the book of the generations of 
Adam. In the day that God created him, in the likeness of 
God made he him; male and female created he them; and 
blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when 
they were created." 

That reference is had here to the body created of the 
dust there can be no question. Mere spirits cannot be 
referred to, for the record says their name was called 
Adam in the day when they were created male and fe- 
male. 

I Cor. xv. 45-47: "And so it is written, The first man 
Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a 
quickening spirit. Howbeit that was not first which is spir- 
itual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which 
is spiritual. The first man was of the earth earthy; the 
second man is the Lord from heaven." 

There could have been no man before the first man; 
so there was no man before the man created of the dust 
of the ground. That is what the record says, and by the 
record we must stand. 

2. Even those represented in the Bible as the chil- 
dren of God were originally created of the dust of the 

ground. 

Job xxxiii. 4, 5, 6: "The Spirit of God hath made me, 
and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life. If thou 



MR. DAILY'S FIRST SPEECH. 1 87 

canst answer me, set, thy words in order before me, stand 
up. Behold, I am according to thy wish in God's stead; I 
also am formed out of the clay." 

Job x. 8, 9: "Thine hands have made me, and fashioned 
me together round about; yet thou dost destroy me. Re- 
member, I beseech thee, that thou hast made me as the clay ; 
and wilt thou bring me into dust again?" 

Isaiah lxiv. 8, 9: "But now, O Lord, thou art our Father: 
we are the clay, and thou our potter; and we are all the 
work of thy hand. Be not wroth very sore, O Lord, neither 
remember iniquity forever: behold, see, we beseech thee, we 
are all thy people." 

These passages prove that the children of God were 
formed in the original creation of the dust of the ground. 
They are not, therefore, a mere family of spirits, but a 
family of flesh and blood, a family of visible beings. 

3. This Adam family, formed of the dust of the 
ground, constitutes the only beings that inhabit and en- 
joy the blessings of this earth. 

Acts xvii. 24, 25, 26: "God that made the world, and all 
things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, 
dwelleth not in temples made with hands; neither is wor- 
shiped with men's hands, as though he needed anything, 
seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; and 
hath made of one blood all nations of men, for to dwell on 
all the face of the earth; and hath determined the times 
before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation." 

As these were made of one blood, they were fleshly be- 
ings and not spirits. 

4. It is to this earthy man that the law has been 
given, who, having transgressed the law, dies as a result 

of his transgression. 

Psalm ciii. 14, 15, 16: "For he knoweth our frame; he 
remembereth that we are dust. As for man, his days are as 
grass: as a flower of the field, so he flourisheth. For the 
wind passeth over it, and it is gone; and the place thereof 
shall know it no more." 



1 88 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

Job xxi. 32, 33 : "Yet shall he be brought to the grave, 
and shall remain in the tomb. The clods of the valley shall 
be sweet unto him, and every man shall draw after him, as 
there are innumerable before him." 

Job xiv. 10: "But man dieth, and wasteth away: yea, man 
giveth up the ghost, and where is he?" 

Who is spoken of here? , Who is it that gives up the 
ghost and dies? It is the man, the being that God made 
of the dust. 

Eccle. i. 3, 4: "What profit hath a man of all his labour 
which he taketh under the sun? One generation passeth 
away, and another generation cometh ; but the earth abideth 
forever." 

The generations spoken of here are beings that live 
here, beings who know, and act. and breathe, who, hav- 
ing received life from God, live and move as physical 
bodies in the enjoyment of the providential blessings of 
God. 

5. The earthy Adam involved his own posterity in sin 
and death, as a result of which they all die. 

Rom. v. 12: "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into 
the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all 
men, for 'that all have sinned." 

I shall ii6w proceed to the discussion of the docti me of 
the resurrection. A definition of the term will first claim 
our attention. The word "resurrrection*' is translated 
most generally from the Greek word, anastasis, which 
signifies a resurrection from death, raised to life again. 
See Strong's Exhaustive Concordance. Parkhurst de- 
fines it as a rising or resurrection of a dead bo<b- to life. 
In Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon, it is de- 
fined a making to stand or rise up, awakening, a resur- 
rection (for example, of the dead), a setting up again, 
rebuilding; in the Xew Testament, resurrection. 
Grove's Greek Lexicon: Ainastasi, from Anistemi — to 



MR. DAISY'S FIRST SPEECH. 1 89 

stand, rise, rise up again. Besurrection to life implies a 
pre-existing state of death, and that the very thing. that 
is raised had been in a state of death. In the death of 
the body there is a separation of the spirit from the body. 

Eccle. xii. 6, 7: ''Or ever the silver cord be loosed, or the 
golden bowl be broken, or the pitcher be broken at the foun- 
tain, or the wheel be broken at the cistern. Then shall the 
dust return to the earth as it was; and the spirit shall re- 
turn to God who gave it." 

In this separation of the. spirit from the body, the 
spirit does not die, but the body does. :;: 

James ii. 26: "For the body without the spirit is dead." 

In explaining the nature of the resurrection Paul says. 
"Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened ex- 
cept it die." It is clearly taught in this passage that 
death is absolutely necessary to the resurrection, and 
that no creature can be resurrected except it first die, and 
that the thing that is thus quickened or raised is the very 
thing that had died. . . 

Syllogism: 

I. In the resurrection, the thing that had died is 
quickened. 

II. In the separation of the spirits from the natural 
bodies at death it is the natural bodies that die. 

III. Therefore, the natural bodies are quickened or 
raised in the resurrection. 

These two premises cannot be overthrown, so the con- 
clusion will stand. As the resurrection of the dead is the 
resurrection of that which has died, and as it is the body 
that has died, it follows that if T prove a resurrection of 
the dead I will prove a resurrection of the natural body. 

Argument I. I base my first direct argument on the 
resurrection of Christ. The Bible abundantly teaches 



190 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

that Christ arose from the dead, which is termed his 
resurrection." 

Omitting the witnesses mentioned, I quote the lan- 
guage of the apostle in the following passage to show the 
nature of the resurrection of Christ and of the dead in 
general: 

I Cor. xv. 3-22 : "For I delivered unto you first of all that 
which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins ac- 
cording to the scriptures; and that he was buried, and that 
he rose again the third day according to the scriptures. 
* * * Therefore Whether it were I or they, so we preach, 
and so ye believed." 

In speaking of the resurrection of Christ, the apostle 
teaches that it was the body that died and was buried, 
that rose again, and this he calls the resurrection of 
Christ. Is it not plain to all, is it not a settled fact in 
the minds of all, is it not an unavoidable conclusion that 
it was the body of Christ that was raised from the sepul- 
chre ? I ask my Universal ist friends this morning, I ask 
you to answer this seriously before God, does this not 
have reference to the resurrection of the body of Christ ? 
Does it not strike your minds as a fact that Paul, in 
speaking of the resurrection of the dead here, refers to 
the resurrection of the literal, actual body of Christ, the 
very body that was laid in the sepulchre ? 

Verses 12-16; "Now if Christ be preached that he rose 
from the dead, how say some among you that there is no 
resurrection of the dead? But if there be no resurrection of 
the dead, then is Christ not risen, then is our preaching 
vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found 
false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God 
that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up if so be 
that the dead rise not. For if the dead rise not, then is not 
Christ raised." 

In saying, "If the dead rise not, then is not Christ 



MR. DAISY'S FIRST SPEECH. 19I 

raised/' he teaches that the dead rise if Christ is raised. 
By Christ heing raised, he means the natural body of 
Christ that had been buried in the sepulchre. Then the 
rising of the dead means the rising of their natural 

bodies. 

Verses 17-20: "And if Christ be not raised, your faith is 
vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are 
fallen asleep in Christ are perished. If in this life only we 
have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable. But 
now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the first 
fruits of them that slept." 

What is it that would perish if the dead did not rise? 
Xot the spirit, for it is imperishable, my brother. It is 
the body that would perish forever if the dead did not 
rise. To the visitors who came with spices to anoint the 
body of Christ very early in the morning, the angels said, 
"Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not 
here, but is risen." What had been in the sepulchre was 
not there, but was risen. That was the body of Christ. 

I argue from this that the apostle is here proving and 
demonstrating the resurrection of the dead. In proving 
and demonstrating that the dead rise, he proves the res- 
urrection of Christ. He argues that it was the very 
Christ that died, and was buried, that rose from the 
dead. That which died and was buried was the natural 
body of Christ, the body that was fleshly, composed of 
flesh and bones. 

Luke xxiv. 39: "Behold my hands and my feet, that it is 
I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and 
bones as ye see me have." 

This proves that in the resurrection of Christ it was 
not his spirit, but his body, that was raised, and that 
body he speaks of as being he himself. This is very em- 
phatic. Paul uses this fact as a demonstration of the 



1 92 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

resurrection of the dead. If my opponent denies this lie 
will render himself ridiculous before this intelligent au- 
dience. As the resurrection of Christ is a demonstration 
of the resurrection of the dead, it follows as an unavoid- 
able conclusion that in the resurrection of the dead the 
bodies, the natural bodies, will be raised. If in the res- 
urrection of the dead a spiritual body will be formed en- 
tirely-separate and apart from the natural body, Paul de- 
ceived us in using the resurrection of Christ as a demon- 
stration of the resurrection of the dead. If I were to 
close my discussion of this part of my proposition here, 
and rest it entirely upon this one argument, I would he 
successful in establishing beyond all successful disputa- 
tion and beyond the shadow of a doubt the resurrection 
of the natural bodies of the dea.d. 

Argument II. My second argument in defense of my 
proposition is that Paul, in the midst of a council com- 
posed of Sadducees and Pharisees, declared himself to 
be with the Pharisees on the doctrine of the resurrection. 

Acts xxiii. 6-9: "But when Paul perceived that one part 
were Sadducees and the other part Pharisees, he cried out 
in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son 
of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I 
am called in question. And. when he had so. said, there 
arose a dissension between the Pharisees and the Saddu- 
cees: and the multitude was divided. For the Sadducees 
say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit: 
but the Pharisees confess both. And there arose a great 
cry: and the scribes that were of the Pharisees' part arose, 
and strove, saying We find no evil in this man: but if a 
spirit or an angel hath spoken to him, let us not fight 
against God." 

The Pharisees believed in the resurrection of the body. 
Buck, in his Theological Dictionary, says : "Bishop Hall, 



MR. DAILY'S FIRST SPEECH. 193 

in his Harmonia Apostolica, has clearly proved that they 
held a resurrection of the body." Jones, in his Church 
History, says : "The Pharisees admitted the immortal- 
ity of the soul, the resurrection of the body, and a future 
state of rewards and punishments." Vol. I, page 44. 

Paul declared himself to be a Pharisee and the son of 
a Pharisee, and said that he was called in question of the 
hope and resurrection of the dead. This produced a dis- 
sension between the Sadducees and Pharisees, because 
they were divided on that question. If both sects had 
believed what Paul said about the resurrection, there 
would have been no dissension. The Pharisees said they 
found no fault in him, which is conclusive proof that 
they agreed with him on the resurrection. They under- 
stood what Paul believed and agreed with him. This is 
positive proof that Paul believed in the resurrection of 
the body. I agree with Paul, and stand with the Phari- 
sees on that point. As my opponent differs from me and 
denies the resurrection of the body, I must place him 
with the Sadducees, who were against Paul on that ques- 
tion. 

Argoiext III. My third argument is that God has 
promised to ransom from the power of the grave those 
who are in it, and to redeem them from death, at which 
time death is to be swallowed up in victory. 

Hosea xiii. 14: "I will ransom them from the power of 
the grave; I will redeem them from death: O death, I will 
be thy plagues; O grave, I will be thy destruction." 

I might not be able to give a true application and in- 
terpretation of this passage had not the apostle explained 
it for me and correctly applied it. 

I Cor. xv. 54, 55: "So when this corruption shall have 
put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on im- 



194 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

mortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is 
written, Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where 
is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?" 

The prophecy of Hosea has not yet been fulfilled, for 
the dead have not yet been ransomed from the grave, and 
the corruptible and mortal have not yet put on incorrup- 
tion and immortality. The grave holds the body. It 
holds the body in a state of corruption. The power of 
the grave will be destroyed when the bodies are raised 
from the grave and from a state of death. If the bodies 
are never raised from the dead and from the grave, death 
will never be destroyed and the grave will never be con- 
quered. 

Argument IV. My fourth argument is that the in- 
spired writers of the Old Testament directly and posi- 
tively taught the doctrine of the resurrection. 

Isaiah xxvi. 19: "Thy dead men shall live, together with 
my dead body shall they arise. Awake and sing, ye that 
dwell in dust: for thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the 
earth shall cast out the dead." 

The prophet here teaches that the dead shall live, aris- 
ing with the dead body of Christ. Respecting those who 
dwell in the dust, he declares that the eartli shall cast 
out her dead. 

Dan. xii. 2: "And many of them that sleep in the dust of 
the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to 
shame and everlasting contempt." 

"In the dust" is sometimes used figuratively, and so 
is "of the earth/' but when these "two phrases are com- 
bined they are not used in a figurative sense, for the kind 
of dust is specified. "Many" in this text is used in the 
sense of multitude. It is from the Hebrew word rob, 
which is translated multitude in Psalms xcvii. : "Let 
the multitude of the isles be glad," meaning all the isles. 



MR. DAILY S FIRST SPEECH. 1 95 

The Greek word polus is used in the same sense in Rom. 
v. 19 : "For by one man's disobedience many were made 
sinners." 

Psalm xvii. 15: "As for me, I will behold thy face in 
righteousness: I shall be satisfied, when I awake, with thy 
likeness." 

In this David agrees with Paul in Phillip, iii. 21: 
"Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fash- 
ioned like unto his glorious body." It was thus the hope 
of David that he would awake in the likeness of Christ 
and be satisfied. 

Job xix. 23-26: "Oh, that my words were now written! 
Oh, that they were printed in a book! That they were 
graven with an iron pen and lead in the rock forever! For 
I know that my Redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at 
the latter day upon the earth: and though, after my skin, 
worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God." 

Job expected to see the Redeemer in his flesh after the 
destruction of his body. This he can never realize un- 
less his body is resurrected. Job spoke by the inspiration 
of God. This is not a vain dream of an imaginative 
mind, but the plain word of God. To dispute it is to 
dispute what God revealed to that patient, suffering ser- 
vant of his. 

I have not time now for another argument. I shall 
not begin one, as I have not time to finish it, but I want 
to say in the time that yet remains that I would be per- 
fectly willing to rest my case here and stand upon the 
arguments I have advanced in support of my proposi- 
tion. I have proved the resurrection of Christ's body 
and demonstrated by that the resurrection of the dead. 
This is conclusive proof that the resurrection of the dead 
is the resurrection of the bodies that died. I stand with 
Paul on the question of the resurrection, who agreed 



196 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

with the Pharisees on that point. Mr. Hughes denies it, 
and stands with the Sadducees. The Old Testament 
saints believed in it, which was the goal of their expecta- 
tions. I have no fears that my brother will succeed in 
overthrowing my arguments by producing arguments 011 
the negative of this proposition. I am constrained to 
believe, my friends, that you who disbelieve in the resur- 
rection of the body are somewhat shaken in your faith. I 
am constrained to believe that those who believe in the 
resurrection of the body are confirmed in their faith and 
feel stronger in it. The hope of the Christian is vain 
without this. Praise God, then, for the hope of the res- 
urrection. (Time expired.) 



ME. HUGHES' FIRST REPLY. 

Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen : 
I am very glad indeed to see my brother start out with 
so much confidence this morning. But I fear his confi- 
dence is going to be shaken, for 1 apprehend not the least 
difficulty in showing the utter fallacy of his proposition. 
Its first part, "There will be a resurrection in a spiritual 
state of the natural bodies of all the dead of the Ad am it- 
race," he defines to mean a universal resurrection of the 
natural bodies in an immaterial state. That is, the nat- 
ural bodies of all men will be raised spiritual, or imma- 



MR. HUGHES' FIRST REPLY. 1 97 

terial, bodies. They are not natural bodies after they are 
raised. Christ's body was not a natural body after his 
resurrection. No man's body will be a natural body 
after his resurrection. Consequently, Christ's natural. 
body was never seen by mortal man after the sealing of 
Joseph's new tomb. Whenever he appeared to his dis- 
eiples it was in his spiritual body. Let this be remem- 
bered, as the result of my friend's proposition as defined 
by himself. 

The first proposition, as proposed to me, was to the 
effect that there would be a resurrection of the natural 
body, and then a change to a spiritual body — a distinct 
improvement over the present form. Brother Brush will 
remember that. But that did not suit Brother Daily, 
and he proposed it as it now reads, and, of course, I 
readily accepted it. 

The second part of the proposition reads : "a part of 
whom will suffer endless punishment." If they suffer 
endless punishment it will be either in body or spirit, or 
both. And I now ask my brother how an immaterial 
body can suffer punishment? Can they be beaten with 
stripes or burned with fire? Or how can a soul totally 
depraved suffer moral or spiritual punishment? A little 
light here, if you please. 

My friend could not keep out of the question of the 
resurrection of the body, but was dipping into it all the 
way through the first proposition, and he was continu- 
ally advertising about what he was going to do, and now, 
the time having come, I hope he will try and make good 
to the best of his ability. 

He has labored hard and long in telling you what man 
of the "Adamic race" is; and this is the result: The, 



I98 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

body created of the dust of the earth "is the real man." 
And the spirit was something created separate and apart 
from man and given to the man. Brit he failed to tell us 
what the spirit. is. He did not intimate that the spirit is 
the conscious, intelligent part of man. In fact, he comes 
very near being a materialist, as he makes the spirit no 
part of man, as he was man before he was given the 
spirit. 

The Scriptures he quotes, and argues so strenuously, 
are not exact scientific or philosophical statements of 
what man is as to body and soul. Otherwise there are 
contradictions in the word. "It is the spirit that quick- 
eneth; the flesh profiteth nothing." Jno. vi. 63. Pro- 
nouns are applied to the body as well as spirit, indicating 
ownership. And I would call particular attention to 
Paul's statement that "it is the spirit that knoweth the 
things of man." I Cor. ii. 11. The man may be "absent 
from the body." II Cor. v. 8. Paul kept "his body un- 
der." I Cor. ix. 27. And he exhorts men to present 
their "bodies a living sacrifice." Rom. xii. 1. What 
does it avail my friend to try to show that the "real man" 
is material in proof that the natural body will be raised 
spiritual? Why not the real man be natural over there 
as well as here ? His logic runs in this wise : "Man is 
material now; therefore he will be immaterial in the res- 
urrrection ! !" He did not learn that from Aristotle. 

It was the "visible beings," the bodies, he informs us, 
that were created in the divine image. And then goes 
on to inform us that this bodily image was of a "moral 
nature." I would like to know how the material can be 
moral. As my friend is "teacher," will he condescend to 
explain? remembering "that man was man before the 



MR. HUGHES' FIRST REPLY. I99 

spirit was given him." 

"God is spirit/' and his image must be spiritual and 
not material. Dr. Adam Clarke says of the soul : "This 
was made in the image and likeness of God. He can 
have no corporeal image after which he made the body 
of man.'' Commentary on Gen. i. 27. 

Man here is both soul and body. I believe as well as 
he does that man here has a material body ; and I believe 
also that man will have a body in the resurrection state. 
But 1 do not believe that man's material body will be 
raised into the future state. There is where the issue 
lies between him and me, and I wish you to remember it. 

Now, in reference to the phrase "the dead." He tells 
you it is the dead that are to be raised ; that it is the nat- 
ural bodies that are to be raised. And so, according to 
him, it is "dead bodies in the graves" that is meant by 
the term, "the dead." This I deny most emphatically, 
and therefore deny that it is the body of flesh and blood 
that is to be raised. Come with me, if you please, to the 
Xew Testament, which has more to do with a clear un- 
derstanding of this subject than the Old Testament, and 
to St. Paul, who has treated more largely the resurrec- 
tion than any other writer in all the Bible. In II Cor. 
iv. 16 the apostle speaks of an "outward man" and an 
"inward man," b} r which he refers to the soul and the 
body. Xow which of these two is the real man and the 
subject of the resurrection? The apostle tells us that the 
"outward man perishes," and he knows nothing more of 
the outward man. It perishes, but the "inward man is 
renewed day by day." Mr. Daily is continually speaking 
of the natural man and of the things which he sees; hej 
sees before him men ! His fault is he is looking on the 



200 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

tilings seen. But Paul "did not look on the things which 
are seen, for the}' are temporal; but the things unseen 
are eternal." II Cor. iv. 18. So the apostle defines man. 
It is the inward man which is the real, eternal man, that 
rises in the resurrection. The body belongs here; it is 
temporal and perishes. Which are you looking at, my 
friends? Again, Paul says, "For we know if our earthly 
house of this tabernacle were dissolved we have a build- 
ing of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in 
the heavens." II Cor. v. 1. No doubt he means by "the 
earthly house" the natural body, which is "dissolved." 
By "the building of Clod," the resurrection body, which 
is eternal in the heavens. And it is the "inward man" 
that is first joined to the temporal body, and then has 
the heavenly house or body. It is not the body here that 
"oivns the soul" ; it is "our earthly house. " 

But the apostle goes on to say, "For in this we groan, 
earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house 
which is from heaven. If so be that being clothed we 
shall not be found naked.'" Here the resurrection imme- 
diately succeeds death. And so he believed that the res- 
urrection body is from heaven, and not from the grave. 
And he did not anticipate a long interval in which lie 
would be a naked, houseless spirit. He shrinks back 
from that with dread as an undesirable state. But ac- 
cording to my friend's doctrine, ever since Paul was be- 
headed at Eome he has been a naked spirit ! Further he 
testifies that when in the natural body, "he was absent 
from the Lord." But when absent from the body he ex- 
pected to be "present with the Lord." Now, where is 
Christ ? Undoubtedly in the resurrection state ; and 
there is no way to be where he is but by like resurrec- 



MR. HUGHES' FIRST REPLY. 201 

tion. Paul is now with Christ, so he has been raised 
from the dead, and has been clothed upon with his house 
which is from heaven: and the resurrection is not of the 
natural body. What need has he of his body of flesh, 
when he has now a spiritual body ? 

Now we come to his argument based upon the resurrec- 
tion of Christ — that his natural body was raised. The 
writers of the New Testament do not so decide. Mark 
says, "He appeared in another form to two of them." 
Mark xvi. 12. Then he did not always appear in the 
same form, and it was not his natural body. He walked 
to Emmaus with two of his disciples and they did not 
know him until he w-as revealed to them by the breaking 
of bread. Luke xxiv. 13-31. That could not have been 
his natural body which "vanished out of their sight." 
He appeared first to Mary Magdalene and she did not 
know him. Why not, if it was his natural body? He 
appeared to those who were in the upper room, when the 
door was shut. Can a material body pass through a key- 
hole ? Hardly. I think. Besides, according to Mr. 
Daily's own position, he did not appear in his natural 
body. And for the life of me, I cannot see how one can 
prove the resurrection of the natural body by the mani- 
festations of a spiritual body! 

When Paul makes his argument for the resurrection of 
all men from the resurrection of Christ, he says, when 
correctly translated, and I quote the Eevised Version : 
"Whom he raised not up, if so be the dead are not raised, 
for if the dead are not raised, neither hath Christ been 
raised." I Cor. xv. 15, 16. The same tense applies to 
the dead and their resurrection as to Christ and his res- 
urrection. And just so surely as Christ is raised from 



202 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

the dead, so are the dead raised, not will be, but are 
raised, agreeing with the words of Jesus: "Now that 
the dead are raised, Moses showed at the bush." Luke 
xx. 37. And his own testimony in II Cor. v. 1 : "For 
we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were 
dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made 
with hands, eternal in the heavens." The one body fol- 
lows and is consequent upon the other. It is not a future 
resurrection thousands of years hence, but a present, pass- 
ing, progressive resurrection, not of material bodies, but 
of spiritual bodies, so refuting my brother's argument on 
the resurrection of Christ. 

But the apostle goes on to answer the question, "How 
are the dead raised up, and with what body do they 
come?" I Cor. xv. 35. Now, if Paul had made so very 
clear the resurrection of the natural body in the former 
part of this chapter, that Brother Daily is willing to risk 
his whole argument on what the apostle had then said, 
why could any man ask about the kind of body in the 
resurrection ? when they had already been told it was the 
resurrection of the flesh ! ! Did Paul propound these 
questions when he had already answered them ? You see, 
my friend is mistaken, and all his loud assertions go for 
naught. The apostle did not have the question of the 
resurrection body before him till now; and now he an- 
swers : "Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quick- 
ened except it die; and that which thou sowest, thou 
sowest not that body which shall be." Verses 36, 37. 
There is no resurrection without a death preceding it. 
The grain sown does not spring up except it first dies. 
That is a fact well understood. After the body of the 
grain dies, then the living germ springs up and forms a 






MR. HUGHES FIRST REPLY. 203 

new body. The grain sown is not the one that springs 
up, and so by analogy the natural body is not the resur- 
rection body. "Thou sow est not that body which shall 
be/' But the question, "with what body do they come ?" 
should be, if my friend is right, "How are the dead bodies 
raised up, and with what body do the dead bodies come?" 
This makes nonsense of the apostle's teaching and refutes 
Mr. Daily's inference from it. 

Next we have some authorities on the Greek word an- 
astasis rendered resurrection. And I will give you some 
authorities also on that word, some recent writers as well 
as lexicons. Creamer, in his New Testament Lexicon, 
defines the word, "Anastasis, rising up after a fall;" 
Greenfield, "a rising up; resurrection." Young, in his 
Analytical Concordance, "a standing or rising up." 
Bishop Newton defines the word, "Anastasis, the word 
constantly used throughout the New Testament for res- 
urrection, signifies a rising again, a life after death, an- 
other state of the same person, but never once, that I 
know of, signifies, or even implies, a resurrection of the 
same body." Milton S. Terry, D. D., Professor of Chris- 
tian Doctrine in Garrett Biblical Institute, Methodist, 
says : "The Greek word . . . anastasis means a 
rising up, and implies some manner of exaltation of the 
dead. They rise or stand up again in some new form 
and power." "According to Jesus, the resurrection of 
the dead is no restoration of fleshly bodies, but an ex- 
altation and glorification of the living spirit of man." 
Biblical Dogmatics, pp. 220, 227. Dr. William Adams 
Brown, Ph. D., D. D., New York Theological Seminary, 
in his Outlines of Christian Theology, p. 253, says: 
"This new conception of life after death is accompanied 



204 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

by a corresponding modification of the idea of the resur- 
rection. Instead of involving the restoration of the indi- 
vidual to the conditions of this present physical exist- 
ence, it is thought of as the means by which he is fur- 
nished with an organization adequate to the needs of the 
higher spiritual world A striking example of such is 
Paul's doctrine in I Cor. 15: There the body which is 
raised is not this present body of flesh and blood, but a 
different body — "as different as the plant is from the 
seed from which it springs." 

You see I am in excellent company, and have the best 
authorities on this question. When the body falls as in 
death, the inward man stands again, and rises in the new 
spiritual body. 

I pass on again to ask my friend to prove, if it is pos- 
sible for him to prove, that the phrase "the dead" in a 
single instance in all the Xew Testament means dead 
bodies in the graves. For it is the resurrection of the 
dead that is spoken of, and if as he says that it is "the 
thing that dies,'* that is to be raised,, he must show that 
that phrase means dead bodies in their graves. This T 
deny, and here the controversy turns, and failing here, 
he loses his argument. The dead are dead to us. Rut 
they are alive to God: and I understand by "Mho dead" 
those who have passed out of. this state of existence into 
the future. But it never means their dead bodies. In 
Jesus' reply to the Saddueees he tells them that God is 
the God of Abraham. Isaac, and Jacob: and that he is 
not a God of the dead, but of the living, "for all live 
unto him." Luke xx. 38. So those ancient worthies 
were then living by virtue of a resurrection, not of their 
natural bodies, most certainly, but in such sense that 



MR. HUGHES* FIRST REPLY. 205 

Christ could say, "Now that the dead are raised, even 
Moses showed at the bush, when lie calleth the Lord the 
God of Abraham and of Isaac and of Jacob." Now, 
when Jesus says, "In the resurrection they neither marry 
nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God 
in heaven/' he did not mean to say in the coming up out 
of the grave* they neither marry nor are given in mar- 
riage, but in the resurrection state, where they are like 
the angels. So Jesus in his reply to the Sadducees speaks 
of the resurrection state or life, and not of resurrection, 
of dead bodies from the graves. 

Xow, suppose we look at this question in the light of 
reason for a few moments. Physiology teaches that the 
body is continually wasting away, and is continually be- 
ing renewed as to the matter composing it. That in 
about seven years there will be an entire change in the 
substance composing the body. So that one having lived 
to the age your humble servant has would have had an 
entire change in the matter of his body a number of 
times. Xow, if the natural body is to be raised, I would 
prefer the one I had in my young and vigorous man- 
hood. Why not? It was much preferable to the one I 
have at present. And I do not think my brother be- 
lieves for a moment that two bodies can occupy the same 
*paee at the same time, or that something can exist and 
not exist at the same time. That is impossible in the 
nature of things as God has constituted them. Xow, 
what becomes of the body? It goes back to dust as it 
was. It returns to its original elements, and they per- 
form service again in the great realm of matter. The 
bodies of men have been eaten by other men, by animals, 
and the fishes of the sea. They have fallen bv thousands 



206 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

upon great battle fields, as a> Waterloo. Their flesh and 
blood has enriched the soil where great fields of grain 
have grown, a part of their bodies going into the grain, 
which has been eaten by other men and going to form a 
part of their bodies. So, if the natural body is to be 
raised, how is each person to have the matter belonging 
to his body when there will be so many others claiming 
the same matter which composed it? Will my friend 
answer ? 

I come now to the quotation from Job : "For I know 
that my redeemer liveth, and that he will stand at the 
latter day upon the earth. And though after my skin 
worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God." 
Job xix. 25, 26. I noticed my friend failed to refer to 
the marginal translation of that text, which reads : "Yet 
out of my flesh shall I see God." That puts an entirely 
different face upon the text, and proves my doctrine, and 
not his. Job did not expect to see God in his flesh after 
the death of his body, but out of his flesh. And if, as 
my brother believes, his body was raised spiritually, how 
could he see God in his flesh? The American Revised 
Version translates that passage: "then without m,y flesh 
shall I see God." So I claim Job to be on my side of 
this question. 

Next we have Hosea xviii. 14. I will ransom them 
from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from 
death. death, I will be thy plagues; grave, T will 
be thy destruction." I trust my brother is not entirely 
ignorant of the terms of the Bible. And so I say to 
him the word Sheol there rendered grave does not mean 
the literal grave, and he ought to know it. The Revised 
Version never renders it grave, but always leaves it in 






MR. HUGHES' FIRST REPLY. 207 

its original form, Sheol. Its Greek equivalent is Hades, 
which never means the literal grave. And so this text 
in Hosea refers to the resurrection from Sheo 1 or Hades, 
and not from the grave, and is against my friend's doc- 
trine rather than for it. It takes some little time to 
learn these things, and I trust my brother knows some 
of them. If not, he has no business here in this discus- 
sion. 

My friend's next proof is from Dan. xii. 1, 2 : "And 
many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall 
awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and 
everlasting contempt." The phrase "many of them" 
limits this resurrection. It does not mean all mankind, 
nor does it mean the same as "the many," as in Rom. v. 
19, where the definite article the points out "the many" 
as a definite mass or multitude. Again, it is limited to 
a special time now past. "And at that time shall 
Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for 
the children of thy people : and there shall be a time of 
trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even 
to that same time : and at that time shall thy people be 
delivered, every one that shall be found written in the 
book." It was at this "time of trouble" that this awak- 
ening was to be. Just before the prophet had been 
speaking of the troublous times caused by the oppression 
of the Israelites by Antiochus Epiphanes. His people 
were in perilous times, and he was trying to comfort 
and strengthen them. Xow, there are but two instances 
in which times of trouble are spoken of like this in the 
Bible: here and in Matt. xxiv. 15-21. Speaking of the 
destruction of Jerusalem, our Savior says : "There shall 
be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning 



^08 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

of the world to this time; no., nor ever shall be." This 
refers to the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus in the 
year 70, and there never was to be again such a time of 
trouble ; it must have been before Christ came, and could 
not be a general resurrection, as my friend applies it, at 
the end of the world. But was in those days of trouble, 
when they hid themselves in the dens and caves of the 
earth, from which some of them came forth and to shine 
as the stars, and others, to shame and contempt. 

Then there is the resurrection in the 36th chapter of 
Isaiah. Mr. Daily violates the law of logic in his reason- 
ing here. The law is, that you must have no more in 
your conclusion than in your premises. This in Isaiah 
has no more than a partial resurrection at best, and he 
is laboring to prove from it a resurrection of the natural 
bodies of all the dead, which he cannot do logically. 
Strange that he who has had so much to say about my 
scholarship should be so short-sighted, in another part 
of the chapter it is said : "0 Lord God, other lords be- 
side thee have had dominion over us; but by thee only 
will we make mention of thy name. They are dead ; they 
shall not live; they are deceased; they shall not rise, 
therefore. Thou hast visited and destroyed them, nnd 
made all their memory to perish." Yerses 13, 14. It is 
no more than a poetical description of the destruction 
of Israel's enemies, and of a restoration of the nation. 

I call attention back to I for. xv. 4-2-44, to the word 
sown. "It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual 
body." The figure of sown grain is used, because it was 
familiar to them, and they could readily understand it. ~ 
When men sow grain, do they sow dead or living grain ? 
Evidently living grain. I ask you, is tbe sowing of liv- 



MR. HUGHES FIRST REPLY. 209 

ing grain analogous to the planting of a dead' body in a 
grave? The sowing is before the death of the grain, the ' 
burial of the body after its death. Man is sown when in 
this mortal state. His is sown a living body> and' except 
he dies there will be no resurrection. The living grain 
dies in order to the spi inging up of a new plant. WTieh 
man dies, then his spirit rises into the new life; and he 
is "clothed upon with his house from heaven." "Thou 
sowest not that body which shall be." No one can read 
these words of St. Paul and believe that when dead 
bodies are buried in the grave they are being sown for a 
future resurrection — that is, if they have any conception 
of the meaning of words. 

On the belief of ■ the Pharisees in resurrection of the 
body: It is by no means certain that they had a con- 
sistent faith in it. Dr. Adam Clarke says : "The Phari- 
sees believed in a confused way in the resurrection, 
though they received the Pythagorian doctrine of the 
metampsychosi's or transmigration of souls." Com. Matt, 
xvi, 1. "They say," testifies Josephus, "that all souls 
are incorruptible, but that the souls of good, men only 
are removed into other bodies." Wars, Book II, ch. 8,. 
sec. 14. Mr. Daily's quotation is not a fair one from 
Buck's Theological Dictionary. For it goes on. to say, 
"and that they supposed a certain bone to remain. uncor- 
rupted, to furnish the matter of which the resurrection: 
body was to be formed. They did not, however, believe 
that all mankind were to be raised from the dead. A 
resurrection was the privilege of the children of Abra- 
ham alone, who were all to rise on Mount Zion: their 
uncorruptible bones, wherever they might be buried, be- 
ing carried to that mountain below the surface of the 



■..• .. 



': -if. 



2t6 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

earth." Now, I suppose St. Paul could say he was a 
Pharisee, and that he believed in the resurrection of the 
dead, and not commit himself to a partial resurrection 
of the body, and all that nonsense of the Pharisees. No 
wonder there were Sadducees in those days ! 

My friend says a number of times that the resurrec- 
tion of Christ's natural body demonstrates the resurrec- 
tion of the natural bodies of the dead. I take it he means 
the natural bodies of all the dead. For that is his Prop- 
osition; the very point he is trying to prove. That being 
true, then I Cor. 15th ch. teaches a universal resurrec- 
tion. Mr. Daily himself being judge. It follows also 
that Christ is a sample (first fruits) of this general res- 
urrection. And at least all bodies of men are to be 
"made alive in Christ," in "incorrupt! on, power, and 
glory," with "spiritual bodies," in the "heavenly image." 
And we would all like to know how he an escape uni- 
versal salvation. At least so far as the bodies of all men 
are concerned; and you are to forever remember how 
desperately he clings to the notion that the body is the 
real man. 

His syllogism : 

I. In the resurrection the thing that died is quick- 
ened. 

II. In the separation of the spirits from the natural 
bodies at death, it is the natural bodies that die. 

III. Therefore, the natural bodies are quickened or 
raised in the resurrection. 

The fallacy is in the first premise. It is the man as 
now constituted that dies. In death the body "per- 
ishes," is "dissolved." The inward man rises and is 
clothed upon with the house from heaven, which is the 
resurrection. The conclusion is therefore an absurd itv. 



MR. HUGHES FIRST REPLY. 211 

"Thow so west not that body which shall be." 

I ask my brother to show clearly what lie means by the 
phrase "the dead." Does it ever mean "dead bodies in 
the graves"? 

And if the dead are raised in spiritual, that is. in im- 
material bodies, how are they to be punished in any ma- 
terial way ? And if the spirits of the wicked are wholly 
depraved, and have no conscience against sin, and if sin 
is their natural atmosphere, and they aijoy it, how, then, 
can they be punished spiritually ? Will not hell be their 
heaven? 

What becomes of the body after death ? Does God watch 
over its particles and preserve them for a future resur- 
rection? The wise man says "the body returns to dust 
as it was." Paul says "it perishes." "The spirit returns 
to God who gave it." Does it return to God naked, and 
remain naked through the ages till the. time of the res- 
urrection? St. Paul "was earnestly desiring to -be 
clothed upon with his house from heaven." Has his de- 
sire never been gratified? If we shall all be unclothed, 
will we be naked and bodiless in the spirit world until 
the time of resurrection ? I answer no ; but we shall be 
clothed upon, and mortality swallowed up of life. Presi- 
dent Parker, of the great University of Chicago, said, 
just before his death: "'1 am going before my work is 
finished. I do not know where I am going, but I hope 
my work is going on. I expect to continue my work in 
the future state, for this is only a small part of the 
glorious whole." He must have believed he would have 
a body in the future state, and not be a naked, spirit. 
The sainted Frances Will aid began the wording of her 
will : "Tis is my last will and testament, after fifty-six 
years of my Heavenly Father's discipline and blessing to 



212 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

prepare me for better work hereafter (as I believe) in 
wonderful worlds unknown." She did not think for a 
moment that she was going into the spirit world with 
her worn-out natural body,. but in a spiritual body fitted 
for that higher duty to which she felt she was called in 
wonderful worlds unknown. 
(Time expired.) 



MR. DAILY'S SECOND SPEECH. 

Gentlemen Moderators, Respected Audience, 
Worthy Opponent — Brother Hughes spoke of my start- 
ing out with confidence, and predicted it would be 
shaken. He will have to make a stronger effort than he 
did in his speech if my confidence is in the least shaken. 
I think, however, that it is as strong an effort as he could 
make, and it is my opinion that he is as strong a man as 
the Universalists could select. Whatever failures he 
makes on his side of the question will not be because of 
any lack of ability on his part, but on account of the 
weakness of the cause be tries to sustain. 

He asks how an immaterial body can suffer punish- 
ment. I reply that such a body can suffer punishment 
just as an immaterial spirit can, and he has argued that 
the spirits of those who are unjust go into a state of 
punishment in the future world. He has never told us 
that people are punished in their bodies or their conr 



MR. DAILY'S FIRST SPEECH. 213 

science in proportion to their sins, though I pressed him 
over and over to tell us. I denied they did in this life, 
and demonstrated my denial, and he passed it by in 
silence. He says I could not keep out of the question of 
the resurrection of the body in discussing the first propo- 
sition. I went into it because he did. I was determined 
to follow him, no matter where he went. I showed the 
fallacy of his position that the immortal spirit, that has 
always had life, being created in the image of God and 
never having lost that image, would be raised to life and 
immortality. I showed the absurdity of saying that 
mortality should ever be "swallowed up of life," when the 
only mortal part of man would never be brought to live. 
I exploded his theory that death should be destroyed, 
while, according to his opinion, the only part of man 
that dies when the spirit separates from it is forever held 
by the grasp of death. To all this he paid no attention, 
and now I am not surprised that he complains that I did 
not keep out of the resurrection and let his pet theory 
alone. I do not wonder that he complains. 

He says the scriptures I quoted to show what man is as 
to body and soul are not exact scientific or philosophical 
statements. They are scriptural statements, and we only 
have his word as to their not being scientific or philo- 
sophical. In the text quoted by him, "It is the spirit 
that quickeneth," reference is had to the spirit of God, 
and not man's spirit. In showing that man was created 
of the dust, and was called man before" the breath of life 
was given him, I was not offering that as proof of the 
resurrection, but only as an introduction to my line of 
arguments. My opponent will not attempt a reply to my 
position on the passages quoted. He seems to deny that 



214 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

man was man before he received life. Will he explain 
the passages I used to prove he was ? 

He says man here is both soul and body, and then says 
he does not believe the body will be raised into the future 
state. Then he believes only part of the man will be so 
raised. He says it is my position that it is dead bodies 
in the grave that is meant by the term "the dead," and 
he emphatically denies that. This is my position : When 
the spirit separates from the body at death, it is the 
body that dies, and not the spirit. Does he deny that? 
Then I argue that if there is a resurrection of the dead 
it must be a resurrection of the thing that dies. Does he 
deny that ? But he says man is composed of an outward 
man and an inward man, and asks which of these is the 
real man. He said man was composed of both soul and 
body. So, according to his statement, it takes both to 
make the "real man." If it does not, let him explain 
what he meant by saying man here is both soul and 
body. He says the apostle tells us that the outward man 
perishes, and that he knows nothing more of the outward 
man. He does know more about it, for he says, "It is 
sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.' He 
seems to think that Paul never looked upon visible hu- 
man beings, because he said he looked not at the things 
which are seen ! A confused debater is liable to say al- 
most anything. 

He says it is the inward man that rises in the resur- 
rection. I ask him, does that part of man rise from 
death? At death, is it the inward man that dies? I de- 
mand an answer to these questions. I assert that it is 
the body that dies at death, and if I prove a resurrection 
of the dead I prove a resurrection of the body. Let him 



MR. DAILY'S SECOND SPEECH. 215 

come to this issue and take a stand. If he says it is the 
inward man that dies, I demand proof. If he^says it is 
the body that dies, he tells the truth and gives us up the 
question. If he says nothing about it, he admits his de- 
feat by his silence. 

The building of God, eternal in the heavens, is the 
glorified state. Then mortality is to be finally "swal- 
lowed up of life." II Cor. v. 4. What part of man is 
mortality ; his body or his spirit ? I demand an answer. 
If he says spirit, I demand the proof. If he says tody, 
he yields the point and admits that the body will be 
swallowed up of life. He says the resurrection b(3dy is 
from heaven. But he defines anastasis as a "rising up 
after a fall," "a standing, or rising up," etc, How can 
it be a rising up if it comes down from heaven ? 

1 was surprised to hear him deny the resurrection ol 
Christ's body, and yet I knew he had to do that to hold 
up his side of this question. Instead of noticing my 
argument on that, and the proofs I offered, he reasoned 
that his resurrected body could not be in its natural state 
horn certain facts. I did not say it was in its natural 
state. His whole argument on that was an effort to show 
that Christ's body was not raised. People do not have to 
be hired to tell the truth, but it is usually necessary to 
hire them to tell falsehoods. A body of soldiers were 
paid large money to say that the disciples came by night 
and stole him away while they slept. How do we know 
but that Brother Hughes is in company with that body 
of soldiers? The angel said to the visitors at the sepul- 
chre, "Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: 
he is risen ; he is not here : behold the place where they 
Jaid him." What was risen? What was not there? It 



2l6 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

was the body, that had been laid there, that was not there, 
that was risen. When men deny such plain teaching as 
that, it is unmistakable evidence of the weakness of the 
cause they are trying to bolster up. How very ridiculous 
it makes my opponent appear before this intelligent audi- 
ence !. He says the term "the dead" never means the dead 
in the grave. Paul, in giving us what he had received, 
says, "For I delivered unto you first of all that which I 
also received, how that Christ died for our sins according 
to the scriptures; and that he was buried ,and that he 
rose again the third day according to the scriptures." 
. Christ died, was buried, and rose again. That which was 
buried rose again. Then in drawing an argument from 
that resurrection, he says, "If Christ be preached that he 
rose from the dead, how say some among you that there 
is no resurrection of the dead ?" "The dead" here means 
the dead in the grave. There is where Christ lay dead, 
and so there is where those lie who are to be resurrected 
from the dead. Again he says, "But now is Christ risen 
from the dead," meaning from his state in the grave. 
The fact of the resurrection of Christ's body being estab- 
lished, the fact is established that the resurrection of the 
dead means the resurrection of bodies. 
■ ; . He makes a play upon the tense of the verbs in the 
statement "the dead are raised." This is but the his- 
torical present, used to state a general fact as to the 
resurrection. It simply means that Christ's body being 
raised establishes the fact of the resurrection. 

In regard to Job's statement, "In my flesh I shall see 
God," he gives the marginal reading, "Yet out of my 
flesh," and the revised version, "Then without my flesh." 
These expression only go to show that he expected to look 



MR. DAILY'S SECOND SPEECH. 21 7 

out from his flesh and see his Redeemer, and he even 
mentions his eyes as beholding him. 

He says sheol does not mean literal grave in the text, 
"I willransom them from the power of the grave; I will 
redeem them from death." Well, let it mean simply the 
state of the dead; it is the body that is dead, and so the 
case is still in my favor; it establishes the resurrection 
of the dead bodies. In the fulfillment of it as shown by 
Paul,, death is to be swallowed up in victory, which can 
never be if the dead bodies are never raised. He says it 
takes some little time to learn what he believes, and he 
trusts I know some of his doctrine, saying if I do not I 
have no business here in this discussion. I think he has 
found out I know something of his doctrine, and I am 
sure he is convinced I have some business here. 

He says that "Many that sleep in the dust of the 
earth*' is a restricted clause. I had expected him to say 
that, and so I made the point that the Hebrew word rab, 
from which "many'" is translated, signifies the full num- 
ber or multitude, as in the passage, "The Lord reigneth ; 
let the earth rejoice ; let the multitude of the isles be glad 
thereof." "Multitude" is from the same Word rab. "The 
dust of the earth" is not figurative, because it tells the 
kind of dust. Mr. Hughes assumes that the time is when 
Jerusalem was destroyed. There is not the shadow of 
proof for this. 

Argument V. My fifth argument is that Martha 
stated her belief in the resurrection of the body to Christ, 
who sanctioned it by his teaching and demonstrated it by 
raising Lazarus from the dead. 

John xi. 23, 24: "Jesus saith unto her, thy brother shall 
rise again. Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall 
rise again in the resurrection at the last day." 



21 8 SKCOND PROPOSITION. 

Martha referred to the body being raised, for the spirit 
had taken its flight already to God who gave it. She de- 
clared her belief in a resurrection at the last day, and her 
firm conviction that the body of Lazarus would rise at 
that time. The statement of Jesus to which she replied 
asserted that the body — the natural body — should rise 
again. This is beyond dispute. If Martha had been in 
error in believing the body of her brother would rise at 
the general resurrection, Christ won Id have corrected her. 
His teaching and act of raising the natural body of Laz- 
arus was proof to a demonstration that Martha was right 
in her faith. The body of Lazarns was raised, and this 
was a resurrection of the dead. 

Argument YI. My sixth argument is that Christ not 
only gave assent to this doctrine of the resurrection, but 
plainly taught it. Luke xx. 27-38. Observe that* the 
men mentioned in this example by the Saddm-ees were 
all dead corporeally. They were mentioned as having 
been "accounted worthy to obtain that world and the 
resurrection of the dead." So they had already attained 
to all the resurrection claimed by my opponent. T want 
his attention to this. Christ designated a class who had 
thus died as being worthy to obtain that world and the 
resurrection from the dead, indicating that the resurrec- 
tion under consideration was yet future, and so could not 
possibly be anything but the resurrection of the body. 
The restriction made by the clause, "They which shall be 
accounted worthy to obtain that world and the resurrec- 
tion from the dead," shows most conclusively that there is 
a class who shall not be accounted worthy to obtain that 
world and this special resurrection. Anastaseos tes eh 
nekron is "that resurrection out of dead ones." This is 



. MR. DAILY'S SECOND SPEECH. 2ig 

a special resurrection to be enjoyed by those who shall be 
accounted worthy to obtain it, and will be, in order of 
time, before the resurrection of the unjust. So Paul 
says, "The dead in Christ shall rise first." Reference is 
made to this resurrection of the just in Luke xiv. 13, 11: 

"But when thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, 
the lame, the blind: and thou shalt he blessed; for they 
cannot recompense thee: for thou shalt be recompensed at 
the resurrection of the just." 

That this is not the resurrection of all is plainly taught 
by Paul, who spoke of the "resurrection of the dead, both 
of the just and unjust." Keep in mind the resurrection 
of Christ's body in reading of the resurrection of the 
dead, for that is a demonstration of it. Then there will 
be a resurrection of the just and unjust. The just are 
those who are in Christ, who shall rise first. This special 
resurrection of the just is declared in John vi. 54 : 
"Whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath 
eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.'' 
Those who eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ 
have eternal life, so their spirits have already been raised 
from death to life. They shall enjoy another resurrec- 
tion at the last day. • 

This resurrection is a resurrection of the man himself, 
as is declared by Jesus. 

John vi. 44: "No man can come to me, except the Father 
which hath sent me draw him; and I will raise him up at 
the last day?" 

The resurrection of all, embracing the two classes, is 
taught in this language of Christ : 

John v. 28, 29: "Marvel not at this: for the hour is com- 
ing in the which all that are in their graves shall hear his 
voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto 
the resurrection of life: and they that have done evil unto 
the resurrection of damnation." 



220 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

Christ had spoken of the spiritual resurrection from 
death in sins in the 25th verse : 

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming and 
now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of 
God; and they that hear shall live." 

The hour mentioned is hoth present and future, and no 
mention is made of graves. There is a restriction made 
by the clause, "They that hear," which signifies that all 
do not hear in that sense. The Jews marveled at this, 
so Christ spoke of a resurrection that was to take place in 
the future, the resurrection of all that were in the graves, 
an occurrence that was still more marvelous. Only the 
bodies, the natural bodies are in the graves. Jesus 
teaches that all bodies in the graves shall come forth in a 
resurrection. Therefore he teaches the resurrection of 
the natural bodies. 

Argument VII. My- next argument is that the resur- 
rection of the natural bodies is declared by the apostle 
in plain and unmistakable language. 

Acts xxiv. 13-15: "Neither can they prove the things 
whereof they now accuse me. But this I confess unto thee, 
that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the 
God of my fathers, believing all things which are written 
in the law and the prophets; and have hope toward God, 
which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a res- 
urrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust." 

II Cor. i. 9: "But we had the sentence of death in our- 
selves, that we should not trust in ourselves, but in God 
which raiseth the dead." 

The Jews had accused Paul of many things they could 
not prove, but they allowed or agreed with him in regard 
to the resurrection of the bodies both of the just and 
unjust. 

Rom. viii. 10, 11: "And if Christ be in you, the body is 



MR. DAILY'S SECOND SPEECH. 221 

dead because of sin; but the spirit is life, because of right- 
eousness. But if the Spirit of him that raised up Christ 
from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from 
the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit 
which dwelleth in you." 

A distinction is here made between the spirit and the 
body. The resurrection of Jesus is mentioned as an ex- 
ample of the resurrection of his people. The word "also" 
indicates that the same thing will be done to them that' 
was done to him in his resurrection; that is, that their 
bodies will be raised. Tn harmony with this the apostle 
asserts that he "shall change our vile body, that it may 
be fashioned like unto his glorious body." Philip iii. 21. 

I Cor. xy. 42-44: "So also is the resurrection of the dead. 
It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: it is 
sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weak- 
ness; it is raised in power: it is sown a natural body; it is 
raised a spiritual body." 

The resurrection of those only who are Christ's at his 
coming is spoken of in this connection of scripture. 
What is sown in corruption ? The Body. What is raised 
in incorruption? The same body. What is sown in dis- 
honor ? The body. What is raised in glory ? The same 
body. What is sown a natural body ? The natural body, 
of course. What is raised a spiritual body? The same 
natural body. The antecedent of the pronoun "it" is 
"the dead" mentioned in this connection. The thing 
that was sown is that that is dead, the body, It is the 
same thing that is declared to be raised in incorruption, 
glory, power, and a spiritual body. 

(Time expired.) 



222 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

MR. HUGHES' SECOND REPLY. 

Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen — 
In reference to my question, how can an immaterial 
body suffer punishment, my friend answers, "Just as 
an immaterial spirit can!" That does not answer! A 
material body can suffer material punishment. It en- 
dures pain, and pain implies waste; and a material body 
cannot endure pain beyond a certain extent without re- 
sulting in death. But the question recurs, how can an 
immaterial body suffer material pain or injury? If it 
suffers "just as does an immaterial spirit," then it must 
be, in conscience, remorse or shame, and for the life of 
me J cannot see how a body material can sutler, in con- 
science. This is not to be slurred over ! I want to know, 
how an immaterial body' can suffer by stripes or in fire 
and brimstone. Shall we have an answer? The ques- 
tion of punishment is now before us. It was not before. 
My friend would have been glad to have drawn me off 
on side issues. It was his only refuge when called upon 
to. reply to my argument. He is in the lead now; and 1 
ask,, is the punishment in the future world to be in con- 
science or in hell fire ? If he says in conscience, let him 
remember that the totally depraved have no conscience 
against sin. They love it; it is their native element, 
and they enjoy it, as Mr, Daily has before borne witness. 
If he says in hell fire, I ask again, how can an imma- 
terial body suffer. in fire, or in any other way? 

As to the resurrection of the tody, he went into it be- 
cause I did. I beg his pardon. 1 did not go into the 
question of the resurrection of the body only in answer 
to him. I had two distinct arguments on the resurrec- 
tion, but not of the body. That was his "pet theory," 



223 MR - hughes second reply. 

and not mine ! As to his "exploding" my theories on 
the resurrection, you, my friends, will remember there 
was more noise than execution. 

Mr. Daily is mistaken about his quoting Scripture to 
prove what man is as to "body and soul." His position 
.was that the "real man was the. body," and a spirit was 
given him. He said the body was the "principal com- 
ponent part of man." He never defined what the soul is. : 
He also quoted passages to prove by the application of 
pronouns that the material man owned the soul, was his 
property, I suppose. But I showed you that pronouns 
were applied to the body just as well, as in "our out- 
ward man," "We that are in this tabernacle:" II Cor. 
iv. 16, v. -L But all he has said on that topic was not 
in proof of the resurrection, he now says. And I thought 
it was irrelevant on the first proposition, and now he 
admits it is on the second. 

Yes, I believe man is soul and body now, and T believe 
he will be soul and body in the resurrection state ; but 
I do not believe that he will have the "natural body 
there ;" and Brother Daily's proposition says' it will, be a 
"spiritual body" there, and the work for him to do is to 
prove that the natural body will be raised a spiritual 
body, and I want the Scripture which describes the 
change from one body to the other in coming up: out of 
the grave. 

I call particular attention here to the phrase,, "the 
dead;" for on the meaning of that phrase turns this con- 
troversy. His position requires that it should mean 
dead bodies in the graves, for he says that "it is the 
thing that dies that is raised in the resurrection." This 
I denv, and affirm that he cannot show that these words 



a 24 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

ever have that meaning in the New Testament. Now, 
"Christ rose from the dead/' and his resurrection is 
spoken of as being from Hades, and not from the grave. 
St. Peter testifies, "He seeing this before, spake of the 
resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell 
(Hades), neither his flesh did see corruption." Acts ii. 
31. The word soul (psuche) is wanting in the original 
Greek, so in recent translations it reads, "he was not left 
in Hades/' and according to this testimony, his resur- 
rection was not from the grave. Again, he read in Rom. 
x. 7, "Who shall descend into the deep? (abyss) that is 
to bring up Christ again from the dead." The abyss re- 
lates to Hades, and therefore the term "the dead" does 
not refer to the grave, but to him in Hades. The word 
Hades and its corresponding word in the Old Testament 
do not mean the grave, but the state of the dead. The 
Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge gives this testi- 
mony on this point: "It has justly been observed that 
Hades and the corresponding word Sheol are always sin- 
gular in meaning as well as form. The word for grave 
(keber) is often plural. The former never admits the 
possessive pronouns, being the receptacle of all the dead, 
and therefore incapable of appropriation to individuals ; 
the latter frequently does. When mention is made of the 
spirit after death, its abode is called Hades." Article 
on Hades. To the same import is Dr. George Campbell, 
who says: "So much for the literal sense of Hades, 
which, as has been observed, implies properly neither 
hell nor the grave, but the place or state of departed 
souls." On Four Gospels, Vol. 1, p. 296. These author- 
ities make a clear distinction between Hades and the 
grave; and as St. Peter shows, Christ's resurrection was 



mr. hughes' second reply. 225 

from Hades, the unseen state, which is the abode of all 
the dead ; so man's resurrection is from Hades, the state 
of the dead, and not of the natural body from the grave. 
Brother Daily is therefore mistaken in believing the res- 
urrection of the dead to mean a resurrection of dead 
bodies from the grave. Mr. Daily has had up the case 
of the rich man and Lazarus, which he calls history. I 
ask him, on that supposition, if Lazarus had been sent to 
warn the rich man's brethren, where would his resurrec- 
tion have been from — from Hades or the grave ? 

Having thus shown that the phrase, the dead, does 
not mean dead bodies in the graves, let it be understood 
that the mere quoting of passages which speak of the 
resurrection of the dead does not prove the resurrection 
of the natural body, such as the Savior's reply to the 
Sadducees, "And there shall be a resurrection from the 
dead, both of the just and the unjust." This my friend 
has been doing largely, which I call a mere begging of 
the question. I am not denying the resurrection of the 
dead, and claim all those passages on my side of the 
question. They make no mention of the natural body. 
Besides, in the reply to the Sadducees Jesus asserts that 
God is not the God of dead bodies, or "dead things," 
but of the living. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were then 
living, for God was their God, and the fact that they 
were then living proves that they had already been raised 
from the dead. "Now that the dead are raised, Moses 
showed at the bush. For God is not a God of the dead, 
but of the living, for all live unto him." Luke xx. 37, 
38. The dead are raised. Mark's account asserts the 
same thing, literally translated: "But as touching the 
dead, that they are raised'' Mark xii. 26. I insist on 



226 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

the tense of the verb here as in I Cor. xv. 15. But we 
are informed that this is a historical present, and that is 
absolutely all that stands between him and utter defeat. 
But that will not save him, for that would put Christ's 
resurrection in the future also. "For if the dead are not 
raised, neither hath Christ been raised." One is an ac- 
complished fact as well as the other. 

But as to Christ's resurrection, Brother Daily says he 
"did not say that Christ's resurrection body was in its 
natural state." Certainly not ! How could he, when he 
is trying to prove that all natural bodies will be raised in 
a spiritual state? That is his proposition. He dare not 
assert that Christ's natural body was ever seen by mortal 
man after his burial. But how does this prove the res- 
urrection of all natural bodies? Where is the connec- 
tion between his premise and his conclusion ? 

But again, if Christ's resurrection is to a spiritual 
state, and that is the proof of a resurrection to a spirit- 
ual state of all natural bodies (and that is his proposi- 
tion), then how can Brother Daily avoid universal salva- 
tion? I know he has said that I Cor. xv. only relates 
to the resurrection of the righteous. But if that is so. 
how, then, does it prove the "resurrection of the natural 
bodies of all the dead to a spiritual state." Turn which- 
ever way you will, my brother, you are entangled in a 
web of your own weaving. How can any man arrive at 
a universal conclusion from a special case ? 

I remarked that St. Paul' said the "outward man per- 
ishes," and that he knew nothing further of the outward 
man. But Brother Daily says he did know, as he said. 
"It is sown a natural body ; it is raised a spiritual body." 
But there is no it in the original there, standing as the 



mr. hughes' second repey. 227 

antecedent of body. Just above, in the 37th verse, Paul 
says, "Thou sowest not that body which shall be." 
"But God giveth it a body, and to every seed his own 
body.'' That is its proper or kind of body. Does Paul 
mean to say God giveth a body a body? The word body 
is not the antecedent of the pronoun it here. Put body 
in the place of it, and you will see the absurdity of it at 
once. 

Man, as he is here, is mortal. Immortality is never 
predicated of him in this life. The dissolution of soul 
and body is called death. At death the spirit rises to 
the higher life, and is clothed upon with its house from 
heaven, and being clothed upon with its heavenly vest- 
ure, it puts on immortality, and death is swallowed up 
of life. 

The insinuation that I believed that Christ's body was 
stolen away by his disciples, as reported by the soldiers, 
is most unfair. I have not intimated any such thing. 
And this coarse and uncalled-for insinuation, coupled 
with his allusion to the bribe of money, indicates that 
my friend has forgotten the amenities that belong to 
Christian gentlemen in a religious controversy. The ap- 
pearances are that he is considerably shaken already. I 
say frankly, I do not know what became of his natural 
body. I do not believe that any man can tell how it was 
disposed of. That belongs to a higher power than man's. 
And as I said before, I do not believe his body was ever 
seen of man after it was sealed up in Joseph's tomb. 
For the greater part of the forty days before his ascen- 
sion he was invisible to his disciples. He appeared to 
them eleven times at most, and then they did not know 
him until he revealed himself to them. I will read here 



228 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

an extract from Bishop Wescott's Gospel of the Kesur- 
rfeetion, p. 111. He takes the position that there was an 
objective reality in Christ's appearance to Paul, as well 
as the others, and surely he did not appear to Paul in 
his natural body. "But this objective reality was not 
limited to one outward shape. It was apprehended vari- 
ously by various minds. Thus we find that the forms of 
the Lord's manifestations were, according to the evan- 
gelists; most varied. A marvelous change had passed 
over him. He was the same, yet different." Again, on 
p. 145, he speaks of preserving the identity by "mould- 
ing the new element/' of which a future 'body may be 
fashioned. With all this I heartily agree. 
•■■■ As the appearances to his disciples of Christ were al- 
ways in such form that they did not know him until 
he revealed himself to them, the proof is positive that 
he was not raised in his natural body. And his appear- 
ances to his disciples in the various forms of those ap- 
pearances fill all the requirement of what is said con- 
cerning his resurrection. And when Christ's body was 
raised it was a spiritual body ; and when he appeared to 
his disciples it was in a spiritual body; then there is no 
proof in those facts of the resurrection of his natural 
body ; but they are legitimate proofs of a spiritual res- 
urrection. In all the passages my friend quotes, not 
one of them mentions Christ's body, and therefore all 
his proofs are but inferences from false premises. 

Strange that Job, by the words "out of my flesh," as 
in the margin; or "from my flesh," as in Eevised Ver- 
sion, or in the American Bible Union Translation, 
"without my flesh, shall I see God," should mean "that 
looking out from his flesh he should see God." The ex- 



MR. HUGHES' SECOND REPLY. 229 

pressions are so very similar ! And all of this when 
Brother Daily does not believe that Job's resurrection 
body would be a body of fleshy but a spiritual body. I 
think it would have been more to his credit to have said 
frankly, "I was mistaken about Job." 

I did not say, "It takes some little time to learn what 
I believe/" 7 but what I know about the terms relating to 
the resurrection of the dead, such as Sheol, Hades, etc., 
referring to his quotation from Hosea. "I will ransom 
them from the power of the grave (Sheol)." "Well," 
says Brother Daily, "let it mean the state of the dead. 
It is the body that is dead." But the body is not in 
Sheol, and so this text does not refer to the resurrection 
of the natural body. And my friend comes in contact 
with those authorities I quoted, and runs counter to 
what Peter and Paul said about the resurrection of 
Christ from- Hades. This is another one of my friend's 
"proofs" that is most emphatically on my side of the 
question. 

"But many that sleep in the dust of the earth," as 
Mr. Daily quotes it. is restricted in its meaning, because 
it reads, "many of them," and a child knows that "many 
of them" does not mean all of them. The Hebrew rob 
lie refers to is defined by Dr. Young, in his Analytical 
Concordance : many, abundance ; and is translated 
"'many" and multitude. But neither of those words 
alone are universal terms. And they only so mean when 
there is an article before them, as "the many," or "the 
multitude."" Strange that the words, "many of them," 
must now mean all men, when it was impossible for the 
words, "the many," to so mean in Rom. v. 19: "For as 
by one man's disobedience the many were made sinners^ 



23O SECOND PROPOSITION. 

so by the obedience of one shall the many be made right- 
eons." The case being altered, alters t£ie case. The ne- 
cessities of a case have little respect for the laws of lan- 
guage or the legitimate meaning of words. 

But if Martha, was mistaken in her belief in the resur- 
rection at the . last day, Jesus would have corrected her. 
That is just what he did when he called her mind back 
to himself, . saying, "I am the resurrection and the life. 
The life is here, and the resurrection is here. He that 
believeth in me,, though he should die, yet shall he live, 
and he that liveth and believeth in me shall never die." 
Jno. xi 25, 26. In him they beheld the resurrection 
and the life realized to them in the living, vital present. 
"The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall 
hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that hear 
shall live." Jno. v. 25. The last day is the dispensation 
of Christ in. which he shall perform all his work. "Abra- 
ham rejoiced to : see. his day." Jno. viii. 56. And St. 
John says, "It is the last time." I John ii. 18. 

In my friend's . sixth argument he makes the surpris- 
ing statement that "Christ not only gave assent to the 
doctrine of the resurrection, but plainly taught it," and 
refers to Luke xx. 20-37. Who ever denied that Christ 
taught the resurrection? Is he so bewildered that he 
does not remember that I used this Scripture as one of 
my proofs? The resurrection of the natural body is the 
issue between us. Is he begging the question again? 
He says that a class there had already attained to all the 
resurrection claimed by me. Yes, sir; and that was the 
raising of the soul into an immortal body, so that "they 
could not die any more." And so far as the resurrection 
of the then dead was concerned it was fulfilled, so that 



MR. HUGHES' SECOND REPLY. 23 1 

Jesus could say, "Now that the dead are raised, Moses 
showed at the bush." The natural body is not men- 
tioned here, and there is no future tense here. I before 
showed that the phrase "they that shall be accounted 
worthy," rightly translated, would be, "they having 
been accounted worthy." 

In the quotation from I Thess. iv. 16, 17, "The dead 
in Christ shall rise first/' I ask my friend to tell us what 
is to happen after that. They are to rise before what? 
Is there any resurrection after that ? Or is it only "then 
a change of the living." When Christ comes, as in that 
passage, he brings the raised dead with him, verse 14. 
Where did the dead come from, heaven or the grave ? 

But wonders never cease. We have Brother Daily 
teaching two resurrections with an interval between 
them, and now he qoutes Jno. v. 28, 29. "An hour is 
coming in the which all that are in the graves shall hear 
his voice and come forth." How long an interval lies 
between the two resurrections? A little light in a dark 
place, if you please? If I understand rightly, he be- 
lieves the resurrection in Jno. v. 25, "The hour is com- 
ing, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of 
the Son of God, and they that hear shall live," is a moral 
one. Well, that in Jno. v. 28, 29, is but an extension of 
the same. The word "graves" can be used figuratively, 
just as well as the phrase "the dead." Besides, the word 
rendered graves literally means tombs, sepulchres. And 
all the dead are not in tombs; in fact, a large part of 
mankind have never been buried in any way. And he 
will not insist that the word "all" means all mankind. 
He has too large a record for that. How, then, does the 
passage help him ? 



232 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

In Acts xxiv. 15, which he has quoted so very many 
times, the words -"of the dead" in the revised Greek text 
are -left out, and in all the later versions reads "There 
shall be a resurrection both of the just and the unjust," 
and there is not the most distant allusion here to the 
natural body.- But take again his quotation, II Cor. i. 9 : 
"God which raiseth the dead." This cannot relate to the 
natural body, because this is again that bothersome 
present tense. I wonder if it is a "historical present?" 
The same tense is again found in Acts xxvi. 8 : "God 
doth raise the dead." Revised version. Then again, Jno. 
v. 21 : "The Father raiseth up the dead, and quicheneth 
them." None of these passages can mean the raising up 
of dead bodies from the graves. 

My friend's next argument is Rom. viii. 11: "The 
quickening of mortal bodies by his spirit which dwelleth 
in you." I suppose men have mortal bodies here, and 
that they are quickened as active instruments of right- 
eousness here also ; and that is all the text means. Just 
above Paul says "If Christ be in you the body is dead/' 
and the spirit is to quicken the body into service. As 
"present your bodies a living sacrifice," Rom. xii.l. And 
again in Rom. vi. 12, 13 : "Let not sin therefore reign 
in your mortal body, that you should obey it in the lusts 
thereof. Neither yield ye your members as instruments 
of unrighteousness unto sin; but yield yourselves unto 
God as those that are alive from the dead, and your mem- 
bers as instruments of righteousness." I suppose Paul 
did see with outward vision natural bodies, but in spir- 
itual insight he did not look upon them as the supreme 
thing, and his whole thought absorbed of them every 
moment of his life. For he speaks of them as "tern- 



MR. DAILY'S THIRD SPEECH. 233 

poral" and "perishing." He strove to "keep the body 
under :" "to mortify and crucify it •" for he said in his 
"flesh there dwelt no good thing." But he "delighted in 
the law of God after the inward man." Eom. vii. 22. 
But my friend has continually rung the changes about 
seeing men before him. Though he now confesses all of 
that was an introduction, and had nothing to do with 
the questions in debate, I do not see why an introduc- 
tion should last throughout the whole discussion. If 
Solomon had lived to this day, he would not have said 
"There is nothing new under the sun." 

Of what good is it to raise the natural body when it 
must be changed before it can live in a spirit world? 
Will not the "house from heaven" answer every purpose ? 
And now I ask, must all the matter in the body from 
infancy to old age be raised up? Or which of the many 
different bodies are to be raised? Is the matter in the 
body at death any more select and sacred than that in the 
vigor of manhood ? 

{Time expired.) 



ME, DAILY'S THIED SPEECH. 

Gentlemen Moderators, Eespected Audience, 
Worthy Opponent — I am before you for the' purpose 
of making my last speech of this afternoon, and I desire 
to give some attention to what my opponent has said in 
the speech to which you have so patiently listened. 

In regard to the nature of the punishment of the im- 
material body, he says he does not see how an immaterial 



234 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

body can suffer material pain or injury. I have not 
said it did suffer material pain or injury. Then he says 
the immaterial body must suffer in conscience, remorse, 
or shame, and adds, "For the life of me, I cannot see 
how a body material can suffer in conscience." Such 
confusion in the use of the terms material and imma- 
terial is due to his disconcerted state of mind. He has 
argued that the spirit will suffer in the future world, 
and it is immaterial, so I insist that the body immaterial 
of those who die in their sins will likewise suffer. The 
nature of the suffering does not enter into the discussion 
of this proposition. 

He accused me of going into the resurrection of the 
dead in the discussion of his proposition. I replied that 
I only went there to follow him. He argued that all 
would be raised to incorruptibility and immortality, and 
that death would be swallowed up in victory. I replied 
by showing the impossibility of that which is immortal 
(the spirit) being raised to immortality, and he has not 
been able to set aside that argument against his position 
on the resurrection. Also, I showed the impossibility- of 
death ever being really destroyed if the body, the only 
part that dies, never comes forth from death. This he 
cannot meet. He says he believes man is, soul and body 
here, and that he will be soul and body in the resurrec- 
tion state, but he does not believe his body will ever be 
raised. Then that much of man will never be holy and 
happy. He has argued that man is a child of God by 
creation, that is, the spiritual part of man, which he calls 
the real man. Why does he say now that man is both 
soul and body here? At one time he says that man is 
only a spirit who merely has a body to live in, and at 



MR. DAILY'S THIRD SPEECH. 235 

another time he says man is both spirit and bod}'. 

He says the term "the dead" does not refer to the 
dead body in the grave. On the occasion of the raising 
of Lazarus, it is said, "And he that was dead came forth, 
bound hand and foot.'' The dead mentioned here means 
the dead body in the grave. Martha testified that he had 
been dead four days and was evidently stinking. She 
meant the dead body, of course. So when mention of the 
dead is made, the corporeally dead, it is understood that 
the body is referred to, for that is what dies. 

He says Christ's resurrection was not from the grave, 
but from hades, the state of the dead. Well, in rising 
from the state of the dead Christ arose from the grave. 
The sisters went to the sepulchre early in the morning to 
anoint Christ, The angel which they saw there said. 
"Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth which was crucified: he is 
risen: he is not here : behold the place where they laid 
him." Mark xvi. 6. Why, in the face of this plain testi- 
mony, which is so plain that all can understand it, does 
Mr. Hughes deny that the body of Christ was raised from 
the grave in his resurrection from the dead? It is to 
hold up his doctrine. He knows that if he admits that 
the body of Christ arose from the grave in his resurrec- 
tion, he is defeated so far as this part of my proposition 
is concerned, and that the whole fabrication of Univer- 
salism falls. He would rather cling to a false system 
than admit the unmistakable teaching of the word of 
God. As the term "the dead" meant the dead body in 
the grave in the case of Christ, and as that body that was 
dead arose from the grave and from the state of death, 
and as this is a demonstration of the resurrection of the 
dead as shown by Paul in I Cor. xv. 4-20, it follows that 



236 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

this part of my proposition is proved beyond all question 
or doubt. 

But he says he does not knoAv what became of Christ's 
natural body. Then it may be he thinks the soldiers were 
right in telling that the disciples came and stole it away. 
He says he does not believe his body was ever seen by 
man after it was sealed up in Joseph's new tomb. Christ 
said to his disciples when they were slow to believe, "Be- 
hold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle 
me, and see ; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye 
see me have." Luke xxiv. 39. That was the body of 
Christ, and the disciples saw it. Mr. Hughes may not 
l>elieve it, but it is true sure. Of course, to admit it 
means death to his theory, but this passage is absolutely 
susceptible of no other interpretation than what the 
plain language asserts. 

He says, "When Christ's body was raised it was a 
spiritual body, and when he appeared to his disciples it 
was in a spiritual body." This sounds much like he is 
on my side of the question. But he immediately says, 
"There is no proof in these facts of the resurrection of 
his natural body," and "In all the passages my friend 
quotes, not one of them mentions his body." How are we 
to understand him when he says in one breath that 
Christ's body was raised, and in the very next that it 
was not ? 

That which was living of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, 
had not died, for Jesus taught, "He that liveth and be- 
lieveth in me shall never die." In saying God was not 
the God of the dead, Jesus did not teach that the dead 
should not rise. In saying the dead are raised, he taught 
merely the fact of the resurrection of the dead without 






MR. DAILY'S THIRD SPEECH. 237 

reference to time. Paul declared that Hymeneus and 
Philetus erred concerning the truth in saying the resur- 
rection is past already, and said they overthrew the faith 
of some by their erroneous teaching. It seems that my 
opponent is teaching the same error. 

He says I teach two resurrections. I certainly do. 
The first is a resurrection of the soul from death in sin. 
as taught by Paul in Eph. ii. 1. This is experienced in 
regeneration. It is taught by Jesus in John v. 25, "The 
hour is coming and now is when the dead shall hear the 
voice of the Son of God, and they that hear shall live." 
Then in the 28th verse he says. "The hour is coming in 
which all that are in their graves shall hear his voice 
and shall come forth/' This is a resurrection from the 
grave. My opponent says this is only figurative. This 
is a mere assumption of his. The term graves is used, 
not indicating that all will be in a literal grave in the 
ground, but indicating that what will be raised from the 
dead will be in the earth as dead bodies. 

I desire to call your attention now to I Cor. xv. 36, 37, 
in which Paul says, "Thou fool, that which thou sowest 
is not quickened except it die : and that which thou sow- 
est, thou sowest not that body which shall be." Brother 
Hughes is placing great reliance upon that expression of 
the apostle as teaching that the body that dies is not the 
one that is raised. The illustration of planting grain 
was used by some, and Paul corrected them in using it. 
He calls them "fools" for using it. In planting grain a 
living seed is planted, which sprouts up and bears grain. 
In putting the dead body into the ground it possesses no 
life, and does not sprout up like the grain. Paul teaches 
that the body is sown in corruption, not as a living thing 



238 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

like the grain sown. The very identical thing that is 
thus sown in corruption is to be raised in incorraption. 
That is what the language teaches as plainly as language 
could teach anything. If he wants to be in company 
with the "fools" who used that illustration, he has my 
consent. 

The term "of the dead" in Acts xxiv. 15 is clearly 
implied in the Greek, and so it is given in King James' 
translation. As there shall be a resurrection both of the 
just and of the unjust, that resurrection is yet future. 
and we know it means the resurrection of the dead. 

I ask your attention again to John vi. 54 : "Whoso 
eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal 
life; and I will raise him up at the last day." As those 
referred to here have eternal life already, they have ex- 
perienced a resurrection. They are to have another 
resurrection at the last day: not a resurrection of the 
living, but a resurrection of the dead. This closes my 
line of arguments on the resurrection. I would have 
given more arguments on this part of my proposition. 
but I desire to give time to the discussion of the second 
part. 

I now pass to the discussion of the second part of my 
proposition, which is that part of the Adamic race will 
suffer endless punishment. I am aware that Universal - 
ists insist upon having the word endless in propositions 
of this kind to be discussed, for the reason that the word 
is not used in the scriptures in reference to the punish- 
ment of the wicked, thinking thereby to get some advan- 
tage in the wording of the proposition. They are in the 
habit of treating the words eternal, everlasting, forever, 
forever and ever, as mere temporaries which apply to 



MR. DAILY'S THIRD SPEECH. 239 

time only, and for a definite period, while they insist 
that the word endless is necessarily of infinite duration. 
I frankly confess that those words are sometimes used in 
an accommodated sense to mean a limited period of time, 
but this does not signify that they haye no specific mean- 
ing, and that no word except endless expresses infinite 
duration. 

In my arguments and proofs of the second part of my 
proposition, I shall have occasion to refer to a number 
of passages that contain the words eternal, everlasting, 
and forever. As I anticipate some dispute regarding the 
signification of these terms, I now propose to show that 
the real signification of the Greek words from which 
these terms are translated is duration without end. I 
propose to do this, not only by the definition of these 
words, but also by their use in expressing the eternity of 
God and the endless duration of the righteous in the 
future world. 

The Greek words to which I refer are aion and aionios, 
the former being a noun and the latter an adjective. 
There is no Greek word in the Greek language better 
adapted to express endless duration than aion. Unfading 
is expressed by am arantos {a negative and marainomai 
to fade) ; unchangeable, by ametatlietos (a negative. and 
metatithemi to change) ; incorruptible, by apthartos (a 
negative and plitliartos corruptible) ; immortal, by 
a tli an at os (a negative and tlianalos death) ; indissoluble, 
by akatalutos (a negative and l-ataJutos dissolved). 
These words are compounded with a negative, and none 
of them could be employed as a substitute for aion. 

Aion is from aei. always, and on, being. Combining 
these, we have aion. always being. Strong's Exhaustive 



240 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

Concordance defines aion as follows: age, course, eter- 
nal, f orevermore ; aionios, eternal, forever, everlasting. 
Parkhurst says, aion, eternity, whether past or to come; 
aionios, eternal, having neither beginning nor end ; eter- 
nal, without end. It is universally admitted as an estab- 
lished law of philology that a word must be taken in its 
literal sense unless the context imperiously demands a 
different meaning. Aion and aionios always designate 
an indefinite, unlimited time when employed merely for 
the purpose of expressing future time. It is never used 
in the New Testament to express a definite, limited 
period when reference is had to futurity. If I have not 
made a mistake in my reckoning, the Greek noun aion is 
to be found in the New Testament 104 times, 65 of 
which it expresses endless duration. The Greek word 
aionios, an adjective, occurs 71 times, 46 of which refers 
to God, Christ, and the Holy Ghost, 65 of which refers 
to eternal life and blessedness, and 21 to eternal death 
and punishment. 

I shall now notice a few places in which the meaning 
of aionios has to be taken in an unlimited sense, as ex- 
pressing endless duration. 

I Tim. i. 16, 17 : "Howbeit for this cause I obtained 
mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth 
all longsuffering, for a pattern to them that should here- 
after believe on him to life everlasting (aionion). Now 
unto the King eternal (ton aionon), immortal, invisible, 
the only wise God, be honor and glory forever and ever 
(eis tons aionas ton aionon)." 

Eom. i. 20 : "For the invisible things of him from the 
creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood 
by the things that are made, even his eternal power 



MR. DAILY'S THIRD SPEECH. 24 1 

(oidios dunamis) and godhead: so that they are without 
excuse/' 

Aidios, adj., aidlstes, n. : perpetuity, eternity. This 
word is used twice only, in this and in Jude 6. 

II Cor. v. 1. : "For we know, that if our earthly house 
of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of 
God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heav- 
ens (aionion en tous ouranois) " 

Eom. vi. 23 : "The gift of God is eternal life (life 
eternal, {zoe aionios) " 

There can be no dispute about the signification of the 
Greek words in these passages. We are agreed that when 
the words are used in reference to the duration of God's 
existence and the duration of the happiness of the 
righteous, they signify endless duration, but we differ 
about the meaning of the very same words when used 
with reference to the punishment of the wicked. My 
position is that this word axon as a noun and aionios as 
an adjective is the best word that could have been used to 
express endless duration, and for this reason it was em- 
ployed to express the endless existence of God and the 
everlasting duration of the joys of the righteous. In my 
next speech I will make this clear by presenting a number 
of passages bearing upon these points. It will devolve 
upon my opponent to try to show that the Greek words 
do not mean the same when applied to the punishment of 
the wicked as they do- when applied to the existence of 
God and the joys of the righteous. For instance, in the 
expressions following, the same Greek word is used to ex- 
press duration : "An house not made with hands, eternal 
in the heavens," and " Suffering the vengeance of eternal 
fire." Duration is here expressed, and reference is made 



242 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

to futurity. They are the same, identically the same. It 
is sheer folly to deny it. This will be made stronger in 
the passages I shall give in my next. 
(Time expired.) 



MR. HUGHES' THIRD REPLY. 

Respected Auditors — I arise to present the last ad- 
dress of the afternoon. I will, of course, have your very 
great commiseration for my "disconcerted" state of mind 
after listening to the very powerful remarks my friend 
made in his last speech on the resurrection of the natural 
body. 

He says the nature of the suffering m endless punish- 
ment does not enter into the discussion of this proposi- 
tion. We shall see. The point that distresses him is 
how, according to his position, the wicked can be pun- 
ished a I", all. He argued that they could not be punished 
in this world, because they loved sin, and enjoyed it. 
You will remember what he said about the drunkard, and 
the sinful in general. Well, according to him, there will 
be no change after death, so evidently they will enjoy sin 
in the future state. The wicked, being totally depraved. 
can have no moral sense, and therefore cannot surfer in 
conscience here or hereafter. He tells us the wicked will 
have immaterial bodies in the resurrection, and he refuses 



MR. HUGHES THIRD REPLY. 243 

to inform us how an immaterial body can suffer physical 
pain, so I charge the reason why he does not try to ex- 
plain is that he knows just as well as you or I do that he 
is in a corner, and he cannot explain. His only attempt 
to extricate himself was in this wonderful statement: 
"The body immaterial will suffer just as the spirit im- 
material will suffer in the future world." But the imma- 
terial spirit does surfer here in conscience, and in the 
same way can suffer in the future state, if not entirely 
depraved. But the material body here cannot suffer in 
conscience, and can suffer only in a material way, and in 
the future it will be immaterial, and then cannot suffer 
material punishment. Can there be any wonder why 
Brother Daily backs right down and refuses to discuss 
this point? 

Let it be remembered that I did not say that the "im- 
material body would suffer in conscience," as he repre- 
sents me. That I affirmed of the spirit. 

I showed that it was man that dies, that the dissolution 
of soul and body is what is called death. ' That in the 
resurrection the soul is clothed upon with its house from 
heaven, and that is the resurrection; and man becomes 
immortal, and death is swallowed up in victory. The 
terms immortality and incorruptibility are never applied 
to man until after the resurrection. There is no confu- 
sion here. 

I have said that the term "the dead" never means dead 
bodies in the graves. And my respected opponent makes 
no attempt to show to the contrary; the reason is, he 
cannot. And he must do that or he fails to show that 
"the thing that dies' is the subject of the resurrection. 
The case of Lazarus was a special one. It was not a 



244 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

resurrection to immortality. Nor was he classed among 
"the dead." 

My friend says : "In rising from the state of the dead 
he (i. e., Christ) arose from the grave." The state of the 
dead is in hades. Now, was Christ in hades or in 
Joseph's tomb? Which? Could he be in both at the 
same time? St. Peter says his resurrection was from 
hades. "He was not left in hades." My good friend is a 
little mixed here. It was a fact, therefore, that he was 
not there, he was risen; but his material body had gone 
from their sight forever. And they were to learn that. 
whatever became of his material body, his real resurrec- 
tion was from the unseen state. So all his appearances 
was in the spiritual body. I offer my friend the follow- 
ing syllogism : 

Christ's after-death appearances to his disciples dem- 
onstrate his resurrection. 

But his appearances were in a spiritual body. 
Therefore, his resurrection was in a spiritual body. 
It has a strange look for Mr. Daily to say, "Maybe he 
thinks the soldiers were right in saying the disciples 
came and stole away Christ's body," and then to add, "He 
says he don't believe any man ever saw his body after it 
was sealed up in Joseph's tomb." After such statements 
it would seem an honest confession would relieve the 
situation for Brother Daily right here. The latter state- 
ment I believe. I do not believe that his body was stolen 
by his disciples. How could I, when I do not know how 
his body was disposed of? Dr. Townsend, who believed 
in the resurrection of Christ's natural body, inquires: 
"Where is that body ? We do not know where it is. The 
record says nothing about it, and beyond the record we 



MR. HUGHES THIRD REPLY. 245 

cannot go. We might say the fleshly covering was anni- 
hilated, or that it underwent a gradual transformation, 
or was cast off, and the gross materials flung back to 
earth, but it is only safe to say that he has. a glorious 
body, which is now the type of our resurrection body, 
without flesh, without blood." Credo, p. 307. 

Dr. Townsend was a man of high standing in the 
Methodist Church ; a teacher in their theological school 
in Boston. He evidently, though believing in the raising 
of Christ's natural body, did believe that was his real 
resurrection, which was in his glorious body, without 
flesh and bloody and the type of our resurrection. Nor 
does it follow, if Christ's natural body was raised, that it- 
was for more than an outward demonstration to his dis- 
ciples ; which, after all, was just as well answered by his 
appearances to his disciples. And they were alwa}^ 
called appearances, in which they did not know him until 
he revealed himself to them. Dr. Westcott says: "A lit- 
tle reflection will show that the special outward forms 
in which the Lord was pleased to make himself sensibly 
recognizable to his disciples were no more necessarily 
connected with his glorious person than the dress which 
he wore.** This will serve to explain the showing of his 
hands and feet and the wound in his side. Mr. Daily 
believes that Christ was raised in a spiritual state, as he 
believes all men will be. So he does not believe in the 
appearance of Christ in his natural body in any instance 
more than I do. 

Brother Daily calls attention to I Cor. xv. 36, 37, and 
says I place great reliance on the words "Thou sowest not 
that body which shall be." I most certainly do, and hold, 
that it stands diametrically opposed to my friend's whole 



246 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

theory of a materialistic resurrection. He says some used 
the illustration of sowing grain, and Paul corrected them 
in using it, That is clear assumption! It was Paul's 
own illustration. He calls them simpletons for not be- 
lieving the simple truth taught by the illustration, and. 
right there is where my friend takes sides against St. 
Paul. Men sow bare grain, and it is not the grain sown 
that springs up into new life. "But God giveth it a 
body as it hath pleased him." Men sow living grain, not 
dead grain. Dead grain would never germinate and' 
grow. So it is man in his present state that is sown, 
while here in his body, and before his death. The burial 
of a dead body is not sowing it for a future resurrection. 
In the passage, "] d in corruption; it is raised in 

incorruption," there is no "it" in the original, and it 
might be rendered "There is a sowing in corruption; 
there is a raising in incorruption." r ] body is 

not the antecedent here of the pronoun it. It is an im- 
personal pronoun. -. it rains/' Just 
Ld "Cod giveth it a body,'' and that does not 
q God giveth the body a body. And in the question 
answering: "How are the dead raised up, and with 
what body do they come?" The dead are spoken of, and 
the pronoun the dead, and if that term 
stands for dead bodies in the graves, then the question 
How are the dead bodies raised up, and with what 
body do the dead bodies come?" And this makes ridicu- 
lous the whole theory of a materia' resurrection. 

I wish further to show the utter absurdity of making 
the words "sown in corruption, in dishonor, in weakness," 
and a natural body apply to the burial of the natural 
body. The word spciro, here rendered sown, does not 



MR. HUGHES THIRD REPLY. 247 

mean the burial of anything in the ground, but rather 
the process of scattering of seeds. Thapto refers to the 
burial of a corpse. "Suffer me first to go and bury my 
father" (Matt. viii. 21) is an instance. 

The word for "corruption" here does not mean the 
state of a dead body, but rather the natural condition of 
humanity during life, through the destructive effects of 
sin in the human organization. As in Gal. vi. 8 : "He 
that soweth to the flesh shall of the flesh reap corrup- 
tion." The corruption of a dead body is from another 
word which does mean it appropriately. Acts ii. 27, 31 : 
"His flesh saw no corruption.'' 

The burial of a dead body is not sowing it in "dis- 
honor," especially when we bury it in all possible respect 
in costly casket and covered with flowers. But thou- 
sands do defile and dishonor their bodies in their vile 
practices in this life. 

To speak of burying a corpse in "weakness" seems a 
stupid misuse of words. "Weakness does not mean wholly 
devoid of strength. The weakness and infirmities of the 
flesh in this life are conspicuous facts of experience ; but 
who having a sense of intelligent speech will write about 
the weakness of a corpse ! 

The dead body deposited in the grave is not said to be 
a natural body (soma •■ psuchil'on, psychical body). Yerse 
44. Adam was a representative of the natural or psych- 
ical body. "And so it is written, the first man Adam 
was made a Vicing sou 1 ." Yerse 45. But he did not be- 
come a living soul till God breathed into his nostrils the 
breath of life. Gen. ii. 7. And he is the type of the man 
here who is a psychical body. The natural or physical 
body is an outward and visible organ of the human soul 



248 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

fitted to the conditions of this life, and is here put in 
contrast with the spiritual body. It is a contrast between 
the conditions of our earthly life in the body and those 
of the heavenly life in incorruption, honor, and glory, 
and power in the spiritual body. Dr. Whitly says : "It 
seems probable that the word sown doth not relate to the 
body being laid in the earth, but rather its production in 
this world; for when it is interred, it is no longer an 
animal body, but a body void of life." Commentary 
in loco. 

Mr. Daily has made much use of the words of Paul: 
"fie had hope toward God, that there shall be a resurrec- 
tion, both of the just and the unjust," Acts xxiv. 15. It 
is the only text he can claim on his grounds in proof of a 
universal resurrection. Tt is now time to call a halt here. 
This was Paul's hope; and does Mr. Daily presume to say 
Paul hoped 'any one would be raised unjust, and conse- 
quently to endless perdition? Does my friend himself 
hope that a single soul will be raiser! to such a condition? 
Paul's hope was a universal one, for both the just and the 
unjust; because he believed "i I s alive in 

Christ. "' Mo one could hope for less than that, unless 
among those Calvinists who believe "The view of the 
misery of the dai 11 double ' the love 

and gratitude of the saints in heaven," as did Jonathan 
Edwards. 

The two resurrections which I referred to was one in 
which Mr. Daily said the righteous dead were to be 
raised first, that is, as I understand him, before the 
wicked. But when I referred him to his quotation, "the 
hour is coming in which all that are in the graves shah 
hear his voice and come forth, " he believes in a moral 



MR. HUGHES' THIRD REPLY. 249 

resurrection here and a material resurrection hereafter ! 
Seeing they attain to eternal life here, and are inex- 
pressibly happy in heaven for thousands of years, of what 
possible good is his resurrection of the material body ? 
But in Jno. v. 28, 29, he sees that the term graves, tombs 
or sepulchre-, does not contain all the. dead. But then 
it means, for sooth, "that what will be raised from the 
dead will be in the earth, as dead bodies" — and so we 
have a new definition of the term nmeois, tombs or sepul- 
chres. It means in the earth ! 

Jnst one question before I advance to the second part 
of his proposition. Just in what way, or by what text of 
scripture, has Brother Daily proven that the natural 
bodies of the wicked will be raised in a spiritual state or 
in immaterial bodies ? That is a part of his proposition, 
the part that the remainder of his proposition relates to. 
And he must prove that, or else he cannot prove that that 
part will surfer endless punishment. And I here state he 
has not proved it, nor has he even attempted to prove it. 
Will he give some attention here? 

We will have no dispute about the meaning of the 
English words eternal and everlasting, further than their 
biblical usage is concerned. He refers to the Greek 
words oion and aionios, the noun and its adjective de- 
rived from it. I agree to his law of philology, which he 
so ruthlessly ignored all through the discussion of the 
first proposition. And I affirm that the first or literal 
meaning of axon is not eternity, nor is the first meaning 
of aionios everlasting. Also, I affirm that these words 
never of their own natural force have these meanings, 
if they ever rise to the unilimited sense, it is because of 
the nature of the things to which they are applied. So 



250 SKCOND PROPOSITION. 

Prof. Tayler Lewis says of the words "I live forever" 
(Dent, xxxii. 40) , spoken of God in such a way as to 
mean nothing less than the absolute or endless eternity: 
"But it is the subject to which it is applied that forces to 
this, not to any etymological necessity in the word itself." 
Diss, on Olamic or Eeonian words in Scripture, Lange's 
Com. 

So it does not avail Brother Daily to cite passages 
where these words are applied to God to prove that they 
so mean when applied to punishment. Yet he says : "It 
will devolve upon my opponent to try to show that the 
Greek words do not mean the same when applied to pun- 
ishment of the wicked as they do when applied to the 
existence of God and the joys of the righteous." I did 
not expect him to beg the question at the very first on 
this question. He is in the affirmative, and it devolves 
on him to show that these words mean the same when 
applied to punishment as when applied to God's exist- 
ence. He must also show that there is something in the 
nature of punishment that so requires, and that endless 
is the natural first meaning of these terms. 

I now ask attention to the definition of aion and 
aionios as given by Liddell and Scott in their late Stand- 
ard Lexicon. There is no higher authority. 

I. Aion, one's lifteime, life, an age, generation. II. A 
long space of time, an age, ton aiona forever, a space of 
time clearly defined or marked out, an era, epoch, age, 
period or dispensation. Aionios. 1. Lasting for an age, 
perpetual. 2. Like aidios, everlasting, eternal. 

It will be seen that the first meaning of these words is 
not never-ending duration, but "an age," and 'lasting for 
an age." 



MR. HUGHES' THIRD REPLY. 25 I 

The Septuagint. the Greek translation of the Old Tes- 
tament, made from two to four hundred years before 
Christ, was the Bible in the hands of Jesus and his apos- 
tles, and the one they quoted from. That translation 
rendered the Hebrew olam by aion and aionios in their 
various forms. And we are interested in knowing how 
that word was understood in Old Testament times, for 
that is the way they understood the words aion, aionios. 
Tn I Chron. xvii. 17, David had promise that his throne 
should be .established forever, and that his house should 
be established forever. Xow, how did he understand the 
forever spoken of here some six times in this chapter? 
His answer is. "'Thou hast spoken of thy servant's house 
for a great vine to come" Read the whole chapter, my 
friends, and you will see that David's definition of /or- 
is a "great while to come," and not endle-s. 

Take, again. Lam. iv. 19. 20: •'•'There, Lord, re- 
mainest forever* thy throne from generation to genera- 
tion. Wherefore dost thou forget us forever, and forsake 
so long time.". Xow here 'long time" stands as the 
equivalent of forever, so that word does not mean end- 
less. 

Xow. if the words forever and everlastings as the trans- 
lations of aion and aionios, ever mean never-ending, they 
do when applied to God and his attributes, and where 
the subject matter forces to it: and we are told "his 
anger endureth but a moment," while "his mercy en- 
dureth forever." Ps. xxx. 5, exxxvi. 1-2Q. Again, "He 
retaineth not his anger forever, because he delighteth in 
mercy." Micah vii. 18. How can these texts be recon- 
ciled with the doctrine of endless misery ? 

I ask your particular attention to these words, my pa- 



252 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

tient auditors : "For the Lord will not east off forever : 
for though he cause grief, yet he will have compassion 
according to the multitude of his mercies; for he cloth 
not afflict willingly, nor grieve the children of men." 
Now, these words have a general application, and are 
hasecl upon* the multitude of God's mercies, and because 
he doth not afflict willingly, nor grieve the children of 
men. Now, if endless punishment is true, then there is 
a contradiction in the Scriptures. 

Take another passage from the Evangelic Prophet: 
"For I will not contend forever; neither will 1 always he 
wroth; for the spirit should fail before me. and the souls 
which I have made." Isa. Ivii. 16. Notice the reasons 
given why Jehovah will not contend forever and why he 
will not always he wroth. They are not special reasons; 
and .remember, also, that God says "he will not always 
chide, neither will he keep his anger forever." And the 
reason given is that "He is merciful and gracious, slow to 
anger, and plenteous in mercy." IV. eiii. 8, 9. Besides. 
if more abundant proof need he given. "I am merciful. 
saith the Lord, and I will not keep anger forever." Jer. 
iii. 12. These things T present to you from God's pre- 
cious word. Take them home with you. Read them 
carefully; ponder over them, and then ask yourselves 
whether God's niercy will endure forever, and then if it 
is possible for God the Father to cast off any of his ehil- 
, dren forever. 

(Time expired.) 



MR. DAILY'S FOURTH SPEECH. 253 

ME. DAILY'S FOURTH SPEECH. 

Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen — ■ 
I trust that we feel grateful this morning that we are 
permitted to come together for the purpose of continu- 
ing our investigation of the teaching of the sacred word 
of God. Before I proceed with my affirmative arguments 
I shall attend to the things said by my opponent in his 
speech yesterday afternoon which seem pertinent to the 
subject under discussion. 

I say again that the nature of the punishment inflicted 
in the future world does not enter into the discussion of 
the question. Suffering will be endured by the wicked 
in the future world. He says they will suffer in their 
souls in the future world. I say they will suffer in both 
soul and body. Though they die in the love of sin, yet I 
shall prove at the proper time that they will go away into 
everlasting punishment. That is all the proposition re- 
quires me to prove. He paid no attention to my argu- 
ment that sinners do not suffer here in conscience in pro- 
portion to their crimes, or in their physical bodies. Now 
he says they suffer in conscience. He did not dare to say 
that in the discussion of his proposition, for he was con- 
fronting the unanswerable argument that sinners are not 
punished here in proportion to their guilt. 

He said he showed that it was man that dies. He has 
argued that man is composed of both spirit and body 
while here, though he. in the beginning of the discussion, 
and at other times, argued that the real man was spirit 
only. I proved in my first speech on this proposition 
that the body without the spirit is dead. I proved that 
at death the spirit separates from the body. 1 reasoned 



254 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

from this that at death it is the body, and not the spirit, 
that dies. To this lie can give no reply. It is true that 
the separation of the spirit from the body is called death, 
bnt the question is, what is it that dies? Is it the spirit, 
or is it the body. It is never said that the spirit without 
the body is dead, but it is said that the body without the 
spirit is dead. Then if the dead is raised, it is the body 
that is raised, for it is the body that is dead. He says 
immortality and incorruptibility never belong to man in 
this life, yet he has argued that the spirits of all are the 
children of God, were created in his image, and have 
never lost that image. He says the term, "the dead." 
never means "dead bodies in the grave." It means dead 
bodies, whether in the grave or out of it, for the body is 
dead after the spirit leaves it. He says the case of Laz- 
arus is a special one. Well, suppose it is. Christ said 
of that special case, plainly, "Lazarus is dead." Now, 
what was dead ? Let us come to the question fairly, with- 
out any equivocation. If we determine what was dead 
in that special case, will it not serve as a general prin- 
ciple to decide the question that i- now before us? 
"When Jesus came he found that he had lain in the grave 
four days already." John xi. IT. AVho had lain in the 
grave? The dead Lazarus. When Jesus ordered the 
stone taken away, Martha protested, saying, "Lord, by 
this time he stinketh; for he hath been dead four days." 
Was she not speaking of the dead body in the grave? 
"Then they took away the stone from the place where the 
dead was laid." This was the dead body in the grave. 
Yet Mr. Hughes denied that Lazarus was classed among 
the dead. Jesus said he was dead, Martha said he was 
dead, the record that John gave declared he was dead, 



MR. DAILY S FOURTH SPEECH. 255 

yet Mr. Hughes says he was not classed among the dead. 
What will he say next to try save his sinking cause ? 

Proof that the term "the dead'" means dead bodies is 
so abundant that I can only have time to refer to a few 
places. Num. v. 2 : "Whosoever is defiled by the 
dead." Num. ix. 10 : "If any man of you or of your 
posterity shall become unclean by reason of a dead body." 
Compare these and see whether "the dead" means the 
dead body. Jesus said to the disciples of John, "The 
dead are raised up." He meant dead bodies, of which one 
was raised from the grave. Mr. Hughes argued that "the 
dead" means dead bodies in the grave in this text, "God 
is not the God of the dead, but of the living." Now he 
say? the term "the dead" never means dead bodies! 
Wherever the literally or corporeally dead are meant, "the 
dead" means the dead bodies in the grave, or the dead 
bodies out of the grave. He denies that the thing that 
dies is the subject of the resurrection. I ask, is not the 
thing that dies the subject of the resurrection of the 
dead ? It must be either the thing that dies or the thing 
that does not die. But how can the thing that does not 
die be the subject of the resurrection of the dead ? Come, 
no evasion here. 

He asks if Christ was in Hades or in Joseph's new 
tomb. If he means by Hades the mere state of the dead, 
Christ was in both and rose from both. In rising from 
the state of the dead he rose from Joseph's tomb. Re- 
ferring to that new sepulchre, it is said, "There laid they 
Jesus." John xix. 42. Let my opponent deny this and 
he denies the Bible. Will he do it? Mary Magdalene 
said to Simon Peter and the disciple whom Jesus loved, 
"They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, 



256 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

and we know not where they have laid him." When 
John came to the sepulchre he saw the linen clothes, and 
when Peter came he saw the linen clothes and the napkin. 
It is then said of John that "he saw and believed." "For 
as yet they knew not the Scripture, that he must rise from 
the dead." Now the question to be determined is, what 
was it that rose from the dead? If it is certain that it 
was the body, then it is certain that the resurrection of 
the dead means the resurrection of the body. 1. Jesus 
was laid in the sepulchre. 2. Jesus was not there when 
the sisters and disciples visited the sepulchre after his 
resurrection. 3. The angel said he had risen from the 
dead, and so was not there. What had been laid in the 
sepulchre? His body. What was not there after his res- 
urrection? His body. What had risen from the dead? 
The body that had been laid in the sepulchre, but was 
not there. 

In denying the resurrection of the dead body of Christ, 
my opponent disputes the plain teaching of Jesus when 
he said to his disciples, "Destroy this temple, and in 
three days I will raise it up again/' John ii. 19. He 
meant his body. See verse 21. In making this denial he 
denies the record, which says, "Behold my hands and my 
feet, that it is I myself : handle me, and see ; for a spirit 
hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have." Luke xxiv. 
39. Also, he denies the testimony that convinced doubt- 
ing Thomas, when Jesus said to him, "Eeach hither thy 
finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, 
and thrust it into my side : and be not faithless, but be- 
lieving." John xx. 27. It had been reported that Jesus 
had risen from the d'ead. Thomas said to the other disci- 
ples, "Except I shall see in his hands the print of the 



MR. DAILY'S FOURTH SPEECH. 257 

nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and 
thrust my hands into his side, I will not believe." The 
body of Christ, that body which was nailed to the cross, 
is meant here, as everybody knows. Then when Thomas 
saw him, he exclaimed, "My Lord and my God." Jesus 
showed that he had believed because he had seen him, and 
said, "Blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have 
believed." The resurrection of Christ's body is here fully 
demonstrated, and so his prediction or promise was ful- 
filled, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise 
it up again." It is strange that Mr. Hughes, in the face 
of all this plain and unmistakable proof, will stand up 
and deny the resurrection of Christ's body. It is plain 
that he only does so to save his cause and hold up his 
false theory. 

He says the pronoun "it" is not in the original in the 
sentence, "It is sown a natural body ; it is raised a spirit- 
ual body." The Greek verb speiretai requires the pro- 
noun "it" to introduce the verb in the English. "It" 
here is not an impersonal pronoun, the same as "it snows, 
it rains," allow me to say, with all due respect to the 
scholarship of my opponent. It is a personal pronoun, 
introducing the verb, whose real subject, "natural body," 
is in the predicate, being also the antecedent of the pro- 
noun. The language clearly declares that the body sown 
was a natural body, and that the same body was raised 
spiritual. The copulative and passive verb are often in- 
troduced by the personal pronoun "it," with an antece- 
dent in the predicate, which is the real subject of the 
verb. 

His effort on the Greek verb speiro shows the weakness 
of his cause. If it does mean to scatter, it is the proper 



258 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

word to indicate the death and burial of dead bodies, as 
Paul here uses it, for they thus become scattered. His 
argument that the sowing here means the production of 
man in his present state here is absolutely false. The 
subject is introduced in this chapter by the apostle's ref- 
erence to the burial and resurrection of Christ, and an 
argument made on that is a demonstration of the fact of 
the resurrection of the body of Christ as the first fruits 
of them that slept, meaning the dead which sleep in 
Jesus. From this he continues to argue that as Christ's 
body was in a state of death and was raised therefrom, 
so the bodies of "them that slept," the "dead in Christ," 
should be raised in incorruption, in glory, in power, and 
spiritual bodies. Being sown in weakness means simply 
that in going down into death the body shows weakness, 
so much so that it succumbs to the enemies' attack. His 
efforts to hold up his theory are certainly desperate, but 
they cannot stand before the plain teaching of the word 
of God. 

As to the meaning of axon, I showed it was made up of 
two words which signify ever being or being forever. We 
are to determine the New Testament meaning of the 
word by its use in the New Testament. The meaning of 
aion and aionios, when applied to the future or invisible 
world, is what we are now to determine. Brother 
Hughes refers us to Isa. lvii. 16 in an effort to disprove 
endless punishment. But you will please notice that 
there is a contrast shown in the 20th and 21st verses of 
this chapter : "But the wicked are like the troubled sea, 
when it cannot rest, whose waters cast up mire and dirt. 
There is no peace, saith my God, to the wicked." This 
shows that the ones with whom God would not always 



mr. daily's fourth speech. 259 

be wroth were not the wicked, but his people. My oppo- 
nent argues that there will be peace to the wicked; God 
says there will not. The use of the disjunctive conjunc- 
tion "but" shows this contrast. This is an answer to all 
the references he made to the Old Testament teaching. 
He says there is no higher authority than Liddell and 
Scott on the Greek. Well, their lexicon defines aion as, 
meaning eternity and aionios as meaning eternal. The 
learned Moses Stuart says : "As the most common and 
appropriate meaning of aion, in the N^w Testament, 
and the one which best accords with the Hebrew word 
holam (which the Septuagint nearly, always renders by 
aion), and which therefore deserves, the first rank in re- 
gard to order, I put down, an indefinite period of time;, 
time without limitation; ever, forever, time without end, 
eternity; all in relation to the future." He admitted; 
yesterday that he did not know anything about the He- 
brew; we will see if he knows anything about the Greek, 
When I closed my speech yesterday afternoon I was 
giving passages in which the word aion necessarily 
means duration without end.. I shall resume that line 
this morning. "And served the creature more than the 
Creator, who is blessed forever" (aionas). ' . Rom..i. 35, 
"Who is over all, God blessed forever." Rom. ix, 5. 
"To whom be glory forever." Rom,..xi. 36. "To God, 
only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ : forever." . Rom. 
xvi. 27. "The God and Father of our Lord Jesus. Christ, 
which is blessed forevermore." II Cor. xi. 31. I refer 
you to the following passages containing the. same Greek 
word as applied to the duration . of , God's . existence : I 
Pat. i. 25; II Pat. iii. 18; Eph.iii, 21;,Cal. i. 5; Phil, 
iv. 20 ; I Tim. i. 17 ; II Tim. iv.,18 ; Heb, xiii. 21 ; I Pet. 



260 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

v. 11; Eev. i. 6; Rev. x. 6; Rev. xv. 7; Rev. i. 18; Rev. 
iv. 9 and 10; Rev. vii. 12. 

Now, to dispute that the Greek word, from which the 
terms "forever" and "forevermore" are translated in 
these passages, means duration that is endless, would 
make one appear ridiculous before this intelligent audi- 
ence. To further ascertain the New Testament use and 
meaning of the word aionios, I shall now show that it is 
employed to mean perpetual, never ending, eternal, in 
regard to the happiness of the righteous. 

Matt. xix. 16: "What, good thing must I do that I may 
inherit erternal life?" 

Matt. xxv. 46: "But the righteous shall go away into life 
eternal." 

John iv. 14: "It shall be in him a well of water springing 
lip into everlasting life." 

Tit. i. 1. "In hope of eternal life." 

Tit. iii. 7: That we might be made heirs according to 
the hope of eternal life." 

II Cor. iv. 7 : "A far more exceeding and eternal weight 
of glory." 

In these passages and in a great many more that I 
could use, had I the time to do so, there can be no ques- 
tion about the meaning of the Greek words, that they 
signify endless duration. So I shall argue, when I come 
to prove the endless punishment of the wicked, that the 
same words, when used with reference to that in the fu- 
ture world, mean duration without end. 

Argument VIII. My eighth argument, which is the 
first on the second part of my proposition, is based on 
the moral turpitude of sin. God's character, against 
whom sin is committed, is infinite, so that an offense 
committed against such a being is necessarily infinite, as 
it is a volation of an infinite obligation to love and serve 



MR. DAILY'S FOURTH SPKECH. 26 1 

an infinite being. The moral law of God is, like him- 
self, perfect, unchangeable and eternal, being a trans- 
cript of the divine mind. This law embraces the penalty 
of transgression. There is no provision in law for the 
extension of mercy to those who violate it and incur its 
penalty. As the offense against such a law is infinite, 
the deserving punishment must also be infinite, for it is 
not in the province of punishment to remove guilt when 
that punishment is inflicted upon the guilty. Sin dis- 
places infinite holiness, and so is infinite in its nature 
or moral turptude, and deserves punishment of infinite 
duration. 

Argument IX. My ninth argument is founded upon 
the contrast drawn between the righteous and wicked in 
the Scripture, while they live here and at death. 

First contrast: Ps. xxxvii. 37: "Mark the perfect man, 
and behold the upright; for the end of that man is peace." 
Ps. xxxvii. 38: "But the transgressors shall be cut off." 
Job xxvii. 20-22: "Terrors take hold upon him as waters, a 
tempest stealeth him away in the night The east wind 
carrieth him away, and he departeth; and, as a storm, hurl- 
eth him out of his place. For God shall cast upon him, and 
not spare: he would fain flee out of his hands. 

Second contrast: Ps. cxvi. 5: "Precious in the sight of 
the Lord is the death of his saints." Prov. xi. 7: "When 
the wicked man dieth, his expectation shall perish; and the 
hope of unjust men perisheth." 

Third contrast: Prov. xiv. 32: "The righteous hath hope 
in his death." The same verse: "The wicketd is driven 
away in his wickedness." 

Fourth contrast: Num. xxiii. 10: "Let me die the death 
of the righteous, and let my last end be like his." II Pet. 
ii. 12: "But these as natural brute beasts, and made to be 
taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things they under- 



262 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

stand not ; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption ; 
and shall receive the reward of unrighteousness." 

Fifth contrast: Luke xvi. 22: "And it came to pass, that 
the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abra- 
ham's bosom." "The rich man also died and was buried; 
and in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments." 

These passages show a marked contrast between the 
righteous and wicked in this life, up to the time of 
death. Those who die in wickedness, hating God and all 
that is good, pass from this world with the manifest dis- 
pleasure of God upon them. Their lives go out into 
eternity steeped in moral pollution, with all the guilt of 
a corrupt and criminal life, in the enmity and strength 
of unholy passions, and having no fear of God before 
their eyes. Dying in the full strength of their moral de- 
pravity, they carry that depravity into the future world. 
As this has placed him in contrast with the righteous in 
thi p world, so it does immediately after death. As there 
will be a resurrection both of the just and of the unjust, 
this contrast will exist at the time of the resurrection. 
As no change will thus take place in them between death 
and the resurrection, this contrast will continue after 
the resurrection, and so forever. 

Argument X. My next argument is based upon the 
doctrine of a future and general judgment. 

Acts. xxiv. 25: "And as he reasoned of righteousness, 
temperance, and a judgment to come." 

II Cor. v. 10: "For we must all appear before the judg- 
ment seat qf Christ." 

Rom. ii. 16: "In the day when God shall judge the 
secrets of men." 

Rom. xiv. 10: "For we shall all stand before the judg- 
ment seat of Christ." 

II Pet. ii. 9: "The Lord knoweth how to deliver the goldy 



MR. HUGHES' FOURTH REPLY 263 

out of temptation, and to reserve the unjust unto the day 
of judgment to be punished." 

Heb. ix. 27: "And as it is appointed unto men once to 
die, but after this the judgment." 

II. Tim. iv, 1: "I charge thee therefore before God, and 
the Lord Jesus Christ ( who shall judge the quick and the 
dead at his appearing and his kingdom." 

1. This judgment is represented as a judgment to 
come. 

2. This judgment is to take place after death. For 
this reason, G-od is said to be the God of the quick (or 
living) and the dead. 

In Heb. vi. 2, eternal judgment is mentioned after 
resurrection of the dead. In Acts xvii. 31, we learn that 
the day of judgment has been appointed. One of three 
things must be true of this judgment: It is already 
past, or it is being measured off now, or it is yet to come. 
That the last named is true is proved by the passages I 
have produced, beyond question. 

(Time expired.) 



MR. HUGHES' FOUETH EEPLY. 

Gentlemex Moderators, Ladies and Gextlemex — ■ 
Mr. Daily has just made an effort to prove that the 
phrase, "the dead," means "dead bodies in the graves. " 
Let ns see whether his work will bear inspection. 

I affirm again that Lazarus was not classed among 
"the dead.'' His resurrection was not from Hades and 
to immortality; and he would not be included in that 



264 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

phrase till his final deaths when he had the common fate 
of all men, and would have a like resurrection. We are 
not to have a general conclusion from a special case. 
The words in the 41st verse, "from the place where the 
dead was laid," do not occur in the original Greek, and 
are not in the Revised Version; so that removes them 
from the account. In speaking of Lazarus as dead they 
were speaking of his body, and he was dead to them. 
His body was all that remained to them. They were 
"looking at the things seen, and not the things unseen," 
in which are the eternal realities. Theirs was not an ex- 
act, scientific language. We speak of our friends as 
dead, but in fact they are alive to God. We speak of our 
loved ones as in the grave, but we know that that which 
we prize most is not in the grave. They leave us, and, 

"Altho' with bowed and breaking heart, 
With sable garb and silent tread, 
We bear their senseless dust to rest, 
And say that they are dead ; 

"They are not dead ! They have but passed 
Beyond the mists that blind us here 
Into the new and larger life 
Of that serener sphere." 

Yes; Jesus said, "The dead are raised," referring to 
those he had raised; but they never were in graves, and 
they are not in the purview of my question. Nor were 
the dead bodies which would defile according to the law 
of Moses. Num. v. 2. 

Christ's natural body was in the tomb, but he himself 
was in Hades, and his resurrection was from Hades. 
<( He was not left in Hades/' so St. Peter. "Who shall 



MR. HUGHES ' FOURTH RKPLY. 265 

descend into the deep (Hades) that is to bring up Christ 
again from the dead/' so St. Paul. The resurrection 
from the dead is from Hades therefore, and not out of 
the graves. 

Eeferring to Christ's raising the temple of his body, 
that was fulfilled in the resurrection of his new and glo- 
rious body. It is not essential for the same atoms of 
matter to be in one's body at all times to be his body. 
Common sense teaches that. Bishop Wescott explains: 
"We can understand how the law which now rules the 
formation of our body may find its realization hereafter 
in some other element, while the new body will be es- 
sentially the same as the old one,, as expressing the cor- 
responding action of the same law in relation to the 
new sphere in which it may be supposed to be placed," 
Gospel of Kesurrection, p. 145. 

I did not say Christ's natural body was not raised. I 
said I did not know, and, not knowing, I could make no 
affirmation concerning it. But what I did say, and do 
say, is, that was not his real resurrection ; that was from 
the unseen state. His natural body was never seen after 
his burial, and all his appearances to his disciples were 
in a spiritual body. 

Mr. Daily is endeavoring to prove the resurrection of 
the natural bodies of all men in a spiritual state. His 
main argument has been the resurrection of Christ's 
body in a spiritual state, on the ground that Christ's res- 
urrection is a sample of the general resurrection. You 
may imagine with what astounding surprise I just heard 
him say of the appearance to Thomas : "The body which 
was nailed to the cross is meant here, as every one 
knows." Then Christ's body was raised in its natural 



266 SECOND PROPOSITION 

state, with all its wounds, and not in its spiritual state. 
And yon will remember with what vehemence he said, 
in his second speech, "I did not say it was in his natural 
state P And that he also said, Christ's body was spirit- 
ual was the reason he could pass through the closed door. 

Well, which is it, my brother ? Take your choice. I 
knew very well when I received your proposition that 
you had delivered yourself into my hands, bound hand 
and foot. 

I must still hold that the word "it" in the text, "It is 
sown a natural body," etc., is an impersonal pronoun. 
There is no antecedent expressed, that is sure. The 
sown grain is the illustration. That is sure, also. The 
grain sown contains a living germ. The body buried in 
the grave does not. Man here has the living principle 
within. It is man here that answers to the sown grain. 
The body of the grain sown does not spring up, for Paul 
says, "Thou sowest not that body which shall.be." Body 
is not, therefore, the antecedent of the pronoun "it." 
"God giveth it a body," and to make body the antecedent 
of "it" involves the absurdity before pointed out : "God 
giveth the body a body." And it is well to keep in mind 
that God gives a body, and not the body of flesh and 
blood. 

I gave the real meaning of speiro, to sow, as scattering 
seed. That is its usual meaning in the New Testament. 
"But if it does," says Mr. Daily, "it is the proper word 
here, for in death and burial they become thus scattered." 
That is what I call luminous, the evidence of a fertile 
mind ! That is what is meant by the apostle in sowing 
in corruption, dishonor, weakness, and a natural body ! 
The exti«me facility with whieh Brother Daily can 



MR. HUGHES' FOURTH RAPLY. 267 

misrepresent my statements by leaving out a word, then 
express his contempt, is most remarkable. Here is an- 
instance: In his third speech he exclaims: "How are 
we to understand him, when he, in one breath, says 
Christ's body was raised, and in the very next says it was 
not raised ?" Well, I did not say any such thing. This 
is what I said: "If, when Christ's body was raised, it 
was a spiritual body, and when he appeared to his dis- 
ciples, it was in a spiritual body, what proof is there in 
that of the resurrection of his natural body?" He left 
off the word if, and made me say what I never intended 
to say. He becomes very indignant and accuses me of 
dishonest work; at least, that I adhere to positions I 
know to be false. In his third speech he says, referring 
to me: "He would rather cling to a false system than 
admit the unmistakable teachings of the word of God." 

Again, in his fourth speech : "It is plain that he only 
does so to save his cause and hold up a false theory." I 
do not know just what he expects to gain by this, but it 
is only too evident that chagrin and anger stand out so 
plain as not to be mistaken. He puts himself in the po- 
sition of the man who was instanced as losing the argu- 
ment by the deaf and dumb gentleman, because he got 
mad ! It is barely possible that his opponent is as honest 
and sincere in the prosecution of this discussion as him- 
self. 

All the reply we get to those passages which teach that 
God "retaineth not his anger forever, that he will not 
cast off forever, and that he will not contend forever," is 
the old one," It is a class he will not cast off forever." 
The wicked have no peace, and so he will cast them off 
forever. But why does he cast off the elect at all ? It is 



268 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

the sinful he casts off. It is so here : "For the iniquity 
of his covetousness was I wroth and smote him ; I hid me 
and was wroth, and he went on his way frowardly, in the 
way of his heart." This gives the reason why he was 
east off and had no peace. On the principle of endless 
punishment he would be cast off forever. But God will 
not always be wroth. All of these passages are put upon 
the general principles of the "multitude of God's mer- 
cies/' and that "he doth not afflict willingly, nor grieve 
the children of men." God is no respecter of persons. 
On the first proposition my friend seemed to believe that 
the wicked do have peace; that they love sin and enjoy 
it. And I could not convince him to the contrary, even 
by quoting that "there is no peace to the wicked, saitli 
my God." 

Mr. Daily claims that he "showed that aion was made 
up of two words, which signify ever, or being forever." 
I recall that he made that statement, but I do not know 
how he "showed it." Does a mere statement of his on a 
disputed point show it? I thought proof was in order 
in such cases. Will he condescend to give a little proof 
on this point ? 

He says, also, that the meaning of aion and aionios, 
when applied to the future or invisible world, is what we 
are now to determine ; and that is to be done by the use 
of the word in the New Testament. But I will inform 
him that that cannot be done by the mere reading of 
texts and assuming their meaning as it pleases him. I 
gave the definition of aion and aionios by Liddell and 
Scott's Lexicon, last edition, and gave it correctly; and 
they do not give eternity as one of the meanings of aion, 
as Mr. Daily represents. Prof. Stuart's first definition of 



MR. HUGHES' FOURTH REPLY. 269 

aion is "An indefinite period of time;" Strong's, as 
quoted by my friend, was "age.' 1 So far the dictionaries 
are against him as to first meaning of the word ; in fact, 
all are as far as my knowledge goes. 

In the usage of the word aion, as given by Brother 
Daily, the most instances are in the plural and redupli- 
cated form ; and all these are against him in proving 
that the first and literal meaning of the word is eternity. 
Eternity has no plural . There is but one eternity. Nor 
do we reduplicate it and say eternities of eternities. This 
fact alone is enough to refute his position on the defini- 
tion of the word in dispute. Prof. Tayler Lewis says the 
effect of immense duration '*is still further increased by 
plurals and reduplications," which could not be true if 
the word alone meant duration without end. 

We have in the Xew Testament the phrases, "This 
world," "that world," "world to come," and "end of the 
world," thirty times in all of which the word world is a 
translation of the word aion. Xow we cannot say this 
eternity, that eternity, the eternity to come, and the end 
of eternity. There are thirty times in the Xew Testa- 
ment, therefore, in which aion does not mean eternity, 
and the usage of the word is against my friend to that 
extent, surely. 

Take the cases quoted by Mr. Daily. There are in all, 
in the plural, eight cases, and in reduplications twenty- 
one cases. All of these show the effort upon the part of 
the writers to extend the meaning which they felt was 
wanting in the word aion itself alone. The same thing 
is seen in the Old Testament. So Canon Farrar says-: 
"If aion meant eternity, how came it to have a plural, 
and how came the Jews to talk of forever and beyond? 



$f$ SECOND PROPOSITION. 

The latter alone was decisive to the clear mind of Origen. 
He says the authority of the Holy Scriptures taught him 
that the word rendered eternity meant limited duration." 
Mercy and Judgment, pp. 378-9. 

St. Jerome, of the fourth century, translated the Bible 
into the Latin Vulgate. He rendered the phrase eis 
tons aionas ton aionon, Secula, Seculorum; rendered in 
one version, forever and ever, and in the margin of the 
Revised Version, for ages of ages. What, now, is the 
sense of seculum in Latin ? Does it ever mean eternity ? 
Never. It means a race or generation of animals or men ; 
then a lifetime; then an age; then the men of an age; 
then an indefinite period, of marked characteristics, as 
in our age. St. Jerome was a scholar, and he evidently 
did not understand axon in its most intense form to mean 
endless duration. And if not in its repetitions, certainly 
not when the word stands alone. 

If axon means age, then its adjective aionios can mean 
no more than belonging to the age, or lasting for an age, 
in its first and most natural meaning ; and in its natural 
force it is no proof of endless punishment. In its rise to 
the force of everlasting or endlessness, it must be because 
of the nature of the thing to which it is applied. It 
therefore behooves my brother to show something in the 
nature of punishment to force to that meaning. That it 
may mean duration without end when applied to the ex- 
istence of God, is no proof that it means the same when 
applied to punishment. The adjective "good," when 
applied to God, means infinitely good, but it does not 
when applied to man. 

The phrase, eternal life, when found in the New Tes- 
tament, means the life of the Christian age, the life 



MX. HUGHES FOURTH RKPI.Y 2fl 

which is its peculiar product^ the life of the Gospel; in 
other words, spiritual life— -the divine life in the soul. 
This life is not subject to space or time relations. It is 
the aionion life, as defined by Jesus. "This is eternal 
life, that they might know thee, the only true God, and 
Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." Jno. xvii. 3. Or as 
St. John has it, "That we may know him that is true, 
and we are in him that is true, even his Son, Jesus 
Christ. This is the true God and eternal life." I John 
v. 20. It is the true knowledge of God and Christ that is 
eternal life. And so "he that hath the Son, hath life." 
I John v. 12. "He that believeth the Son, hath eternal 
life." John vi. 47. 

Our word, eternal, has acquired a meaning appropri- 
ate to aionion when applied to this life, of which it is 
said: "In him was life, and the life was the li^ht of 
men." John i. 4. 

The third definition of the Century Dictionary is : "In 
a special metaphysical use, existing outside of all rela- 
tions of time; independent of all time conditions; not 
temporal." 

The Standard Dictionary follows in the . same line : 
"Eternal 4th Def. Independent of time and its condi- 
tions, or of things that are perishable ; unchangeable ; im- 
mutable; also, of or pertaining to eternity; not tempo- 
ral; as, eternal truths. Timeless carries, perhaps, the 
fullest idea of eternal, as above and beyond time, and not 
measured by it." 

These definitions of eternal, following the scriptural 
definitions of eternal life, make of none effect all my 
friend's efforts to show that eternal life means the same 
as endless life, and as instances of the application t© fa- 



272 S^COStD PROPOSITION. 

ture time of the word aior^ios. 

The Old Testament is to be heard on this question ; 
and you will remember that Brother Daily failed to pay 
atttention to the definitions of David and Jeremiah of 
the word forever, representing olam and axon, as being 
"long time." Will he now note the following passages ? 

"I will establish my covenant between me and thee, 
and thy seed after thee, in their generations, for an ever- 
lasting covenant." Gen. xvii. 7. "And I will give unto 
thee, and to thy seed after thee, all the land of Canaan 
for an everlasting possession." Gen. xvii. 8. That cir- 
cumcision was to be an everlasting covenant. Gen. xvii. 
13. That the Aaronic priesthood was to be everlasting. 
Ex. xl. 15. That the making of an atonement was to be 
an everlasting statute. Lev. xvi. 34. That by law a 
servant could become a servant forever. Deut. xv. 17. 
And that when Jonah was swallowed by the whale, he 
went down to the bottoms of the mountains, and that the 
earth and her bars were about him forever, which was 
three days and three nights. Jonah ii. 6. In none of 
these instances does the word everlasting and forever 
mean endless; and I can give hundreds of similar char- 
acter. 

In my friend's eighth argument, on the moral turpi- 
tude of sin, there are involved many infinite absurdities. 
It is absurd to represent man as accountable to a law 
above his capacity and which it is impossible to obey. . 
Man is finite ; the law, he says, is infinite ; it is, therefore, 
above his capacity. No finite being can understand an 
"infinite obligation," nor can he fulfill it. Such a law 
could be but a pretense to entrap and give excuse for in- 
finite torment, A law that demands punishment infinite 



MR. HUGHES' FOURTH REPLY. 273 

in duration, could with equal reason demand punish- 
ment infinite in degree. And why is my friend dodging 
the question of the nature of the punishment he believes 
in ? Is it too horrible for even his sense of eternal right ? 
But, he says, sin displaces infinite holiness. How can 
one infinite displace another ? And how does it come 
that infinite holiness never displaces sin ? The world of 
mankind is at infinite disadvantage. It is an infinite 
curse to be born into this world. They are under an in- 
finite disability through no fault of their own. They 
were born so, and absolutely helpless. God created them 
so; he foresaw it, and ordained it. The whole responsi- 
bility is on him. There is no help absolutely for man 
but in God, and he gives none; or, if he does, it is to a 
"class," the elect few, no better than the rest, selected in 
the most partial manner. And then to add insult to in- 
finite injury, tell them that God is no respecter of per- 
sons ; that he loves the world ; that he is good to all, and 
his tender mercies are over all his works. Even that he 
takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather 
that they should turn and live. If sin is infinite, then 
every sin is infinite, and the child who steals an apple is 
just as guilty as he who commits the sin against the Holy 
Spirit, and will be punished with the same infinite dura- 
tion. If all sins are infinite, and the atonement can be 
no more than infinite, it can therefore cancel but one sin, 
and for all the rest there is no atonement, and the result 
is universal damnation. And this is my reply to this bit 
of my friend's medieval theology. 

The argument on the contrast between the righteous 
and the wicked does not show a perpetuation of that con- 
trast to eternity. It assumes that some will remain to 



274 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

the resurrection, and after which there is no attempt to 
prove. The resurrection of the just and unjust was a 
matter of hope with. St. Paul, and he could not have 
"hope toward God" that a large part of the human fam- 
ily would be raised to endless torment — a point I made 
in my last speech, but ignored by Mr. Daily ; and as long- 
as that stands his argument has no force. 

My friend's last argument on the "'general judgment" 
requires but a brief notice. There is judgment here, fu- 
ture, and continuously throughout Christ's reign, and his 
reign embraces both the living and the dead. The judg- 
ment begins with his coming in his kingdom, which took 
place within the lifetime of some of his disciples. "There 
be some standing here which shall not taste of death till 
they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." Matt, 
xvi. 28. So St. Paul, "I charge thee before God, and 
the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick (liv- 
ing) and the dead at his appearing and kingdom." II 
Tim. iv. 1. So St. Peter said, "He is ready to judge the 
quick and the dead." 1 Pet. iv. 5. Why get ready thou- 
sands of years too soon? That this judgment includes 
judgment in this life is evident from the words of the 
prophet: "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that T 
will raise unto David a righteous branch, and a king shall 
reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and jus- 
tice in the earth." Jer. xxiii. 5. This judgment 
throughout Christ's reign is properly the ••eternal judg- 
ment." An eternal judgment after the resurrection 
makes quite a long "judgment day." This judgment 
issues in victory: "He shall not strive, nor cry : neither 
shall any man hear his voice in the streets. A bruised 
seed shall he not break, and smoking liax shall he not 



MR. DAILY'S FIFTH SPEECH. 275 

quench, till he send forth judgment unto victory." Matt, 
xii. 19, 20. "Every knee shall how of things in heaven, 
of things in the earth, and things under the earth, and 
every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord, to the glory of 
God the Father." Phil. ii. 9-11. 
(Time expired.) 



MR. DAILY'S FIFTH SPEECH. 

Gentlemen Moderators and Respected Audience 
■ — It is necessary for me to pay some attention to the ad- 
dress to which you just patiently listened. Another sur- 
prise is given us. He says Lazarus was not classed among 
the dead. He says he would not be included in that 
phrase till his final death. Are we to understand him to 
mean by this that Lazarus was not dead? If not, what 
does he mean? It is to be inferred from this that Mr. 
Hughes admits his body was to be classed among the 
dead when his final death came. Then his body is to be 
classed among the dead now. But he says the words, 
"from the place where the dead lay," are not in the orig- 
inal, and are, therefore, removed from the account. Then 
the translators, in saying "Then they took away the 
stone from the place where the dead lay," made the mis- 
take of supposing "the dead" was laid there. Mr. 
Hughes' assertion and conclusion, if they amount to any- 
thing, amount to a denial that "the dead" lay in the sep- 



276 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

ulchre or grave over which the stone had been laid. But 
in the 34th verse, Jesus inquired, "Where have ye laid 
him ?" The answer was, "Lord, come and see." It was 
the dead body about which this inquiry was made. He 
says their language was not exact, scientific language, 
when they spoke of the body as being the dead Lazarus. 
Why, he even criticises the language of Jesus himself in 
this statement ! My learned friend pretends to great ex- 
actness and most wonderful science in language ! He has 
argued that the dead were raised to immortality when 
freed from the body, supposing the term "dead" not to 
refer to the body, but to the disembodied spirit. Laza- 
rus was, then, enjoying a resurrection state when his 
body was lying in the grave. If that be true, what did 
Jesus mean when he said, "Thy brother shall rise again?" 
Will he dodge this by asserting that Lazarus was not 
really dead ? 

He says Christ's natural body was in the tomb, but he 
himself was in Hades, and that his resurrection was from 
Hades. Does he mean that his body was still in the 
tomb after his resurrection ? I assert that his body was 
raised from the tomb. I have proved that assertion over 
and over. Paul delivered to the Corinthians first of all, 
as the very first principle of doctrinal truth, that Christ 
had died and was buried, and that he rose again the third 
day. ' I Cor. xv. 3, 4. It was the very Christ that was 
buried in the tomb that rose again. Mr. Hughes argues 
that Christ did not rise from the tomb at all, but that he 
rose in the resurrection of his "new and glorious body." 
His position flatly contradicts Paul, for Paul says it was 
the Christ that was buried in the tomb that rose again, 
while my friend says it was not. You can all see this 



MR. DAILY S FIFTH SPEECH. ' 277 

contradiction, and so can he. Now, if the resurrection 
of Christ is the resurrection of his "new and glorious 
body/' a different body from the one that was buried, 
not the one that was buried at all, but an entirely differ 
ent one, and the resurrection of his people is the resurrec- 
tion of a like "new and glorious body/ 7 why has he ar- 
gued that in the resurrection the body comes down from 
above? That might, perhaps, be called a resurrection of 
the living soul into a body that comes down, but certainly 
it could not be termed a resurrection of the body at all. 
Even to say there is a resurrection of a living soul is a 
contradiction. It would be a lifting up, but not a resur- 
rection, certainly not a resurrection of the dead. When 
Christ spoke of raising the temple, he did not speak of 
the temple of his body, as my friend tries to make it ap- 
pear, but of the body itself. 

But he now says he did not say Christ's natural body 
was not raised. He does not know, and, not knowing, he 
cannot make any affirmation. Then he does not know 
that the temple Christ spoke of was raised, meaning his 
body, and he cannot make any affirmation as to that pre- 
diction being fulfilled. The fact is, Christ's body was 
raised, as the nail prints showed, and from that fact there 
is no escape. 

I am astonished that my friend insists that the pro- 
noun "it" is an impersonal pronoun in the sentence, "It 
is sown a natural body.'' It is not an impersonal pro- 
noun, and nothing like one. "It/ 5 when an impersonal 
pronoun, is used with impersonal verbs, or verbs that 
have no forms of inflection to denote the first or second 
persons at all, but are used only in the third person of 
the singular number, and the pronoun merely helps the 



278 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

verb to express its action or being without reference to 
any person. It rains, it snows, it blows, are examples. 
In the sentence under discussion "it" is purely a per- 
sonal pronoun, introducing the passive verb "is sown," 
its antecedent being in the predicate. If the question be 
asked, What is sown? the answer would be easy. ISTo 
scholar would think of anything but the body as being 
the correct answer. If I understand my friend, his po- 
sition is that the living spirit is sown into a body here 
in this life state, and there will be a raising up of that 
spirit into a new body at death. The sowing, he seems 
to think, is the planting of a living germ in the human 
body here. But that the sowing here meant is the going 
down into literal death is proved by Paul's reference to 
Christ's death, burial and resurrection. He did not as- 
sert that Christ was planted in a human body and raised 
from that body, but that the Christ that was buried in 
death was raised from the dead. This was a literal 
death, burial and resurrection. As to God giving "it" a 
body as it pleased him, and to every seed its own body, 
that refers to the planting of the seed in the ground, 
which is not a proper illustration of the resurrection, as 
the apostle shows. Look at that figure. Is it a good 
figure even of my friend's idea of the planting and resur- 
rection? The seed is planted, a stalk rises and stands, 
on which the identical kind of seed grows that was 
planted. If it is a grain of corn, then grains of corn are 
produced just like the parent grain. It is clear that the 
illustration does not fit his theory. 

My opponent asks for a lesson in Greek. He is doubt- 
ful about axon being a compound of two words which 
mean always being. All right, Brother Hughes.- Here 



ME. DAILY S FIFTH SPEECH. 279 

is the lesson; see if you can learn it. Aei (pronounced 
ah-eye) signifies continued duration as expressed by 
a trays or ever. On, present participle of the verb eimi 
(pronounced i-mee), being. These combined form the 
word aion, from which the adjective aionios is derived. 
See? The real signification of these words is, therefore, 
perpetual being, being without end. This fact lias been 
fully demonstrated by the large number of passages re- 
ferred to by me where these words are applied to the 
existence of God and the duration of the joys of the 
righteous. 

He made a play on the plural form of the word aion, 
as signifying ages of ages, and tried to establish the point 
that it necessarily means in such cases a very long time, 
but surely limited. A mere tyro in philology knows that 
the singular and plural of nouns are often employed to 
designate one and the same thing. In regard to the 
plural noun aiones, it imports no more than the singular 
aion. As to the phrase aiones aionon, ages of ages, it is a 
mere intensive form of expression; as, holy of holies, 
heaven of heavens, etc. Forever in English expresses 
endless duration unless used in its restricted sense; so 
we may say forever and ever, not to add to the duration 
expressed, but to intensify the idea and render it em- 
phatic. His criticism is not built on any usus loquendi 
of Hebrew, Greek, or English language. 

It is admitted that aion sometimes means an age in 
the sense of dispensation. It is also sometimes used to 
mean world: also present world and future world, when 
qualified by words that show it to refer to the one or the 
other. But when the term applies to duration, especially 
in the future world, there is no place in the Xew Testa- 



28o SECOND PROPOSITION. 

ment where it designates a limited period. The adjective 
aionios is correctly defined by the learned Moses Stuart, 
perpetual, never-ending, eternal. The same critical 
scholar defines axon, an indefinite period of time; time 
without limitation; ever, forever, time without end, 
eternity. Lidell & Scott gives it as meaning a long space 
of time, eternity. This same authentic work says of 
aionios, lasting, eternal. With this, Parkhurst, who 
gives the special New Testament use, agrees. James 
Strong, S. T. D., LL. D., in his Exhaustive Concordance, 
agrees with these other noted authors. 

My opponent says the term eternal life, when found in 
the New Testament, means the life of the Christian, 
signifying the kind of life and not the duration of that 
life. I expected this, and told my friends so this morn- 
ing. He argues that this life is a mere knowledge of 
God and Christ, basing his argument mainly on John 
xvii. 3. The teaching of that passage is that eternal life 
is evidenced by the knowledge. Any one knows that 
knowledge is not life of any kind. This life is called 
everlasting as well as eternal, and the same word is ap- 
plied to the house which is eternal in the heavens. This 
is a poor dodge. Eternal life simply means life without 
end, just as the term "King eternal" signifies that he 
will endure forever. The definitions he gave to show 
that the word eternal expresses duration independent of 
all time relations, not temporal, etc., is no proof of its 
being without the idea of duration. Eternity is not 
measured, but it is duration. 

A finite being may be under an infinite obligation to 
obey the holy law. Man is declared to be not subject to 
the law of God, and cannot be, in his carnal or unchanged 



MR. DA.'LYS FIFTH SPEECH. 1281 

state, and it is asserted that lie cannot please God in that 
condition. Bom. viii. ?, 8. Yet the obligation rests 
upon him. His inability being of a moral nature affords 
him no excuse. As sin is an offense committed against 
an infinite being, it is necessarily infinite in its moral 
turpitude. 

Paul's hope toward God was that he would be among 
the just in the resurrection, when both the just and un- 
just would be raised. Knowing that such a resurrection 
would occur, he had the hope of being among the just. 
This is the hope of all Christians. 

I proved a contrast between the righteous and the 
wicked here and at death by many passages, which can- 
not be set aside or shown to prove the contrary. I did 
not assume that some would remain unjust till the resur- 
rection. I proved they would in proving there would be 
a resurrection both of the just and the unjust. As this 
is true, some will be unjust at the resurrection. Thus 
no change will take place between death and the resur- 
rection. This is the only period claimed by my opponent 
when a change can take place in those who pass from 
this life in an unjust state, for it was in the future 
world and to the unjust before the resurrection that he 
argued Jesus went and preached for their reformation. 

T proved a future and general judgment, and that this 
judgment was after death. "It is appointed unto men 
once to die, but after this the judgment." So the judg- 
ment is after men, all men, die. This is "the day when 
God shall judge the secrets of men," for which reason he 
will "reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be 
punished.'* In view of this day of "judgment to come," 
Felix trembled. 



282 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

Argument X. My next argument in direct proof of 
my proposition is based upon the fact that there is re- 
vealed in the scriptures a place of punishment in the 
future world. I need not dwell on this, for he has ad- 
mitted it in saying that the unjust spirits enter the 
future world and suffer punishment there. As they 
suffer punishment, there is a place where they suffer it, 
for there can he no suffering without a place to suffer. 
He may call this place of punishment what he pleases; 
he may call it hades, sheol, gehenna, or any other term 
he pleases; T purpose calling it hell. That there is a 
place for the wicked to he punished in the future world 
according to the TJniversalist creed has been shown by 
Mr. Hughes, who is one of the best authorities in that 
church. But I do not take his word always, for he bases 
a great many things on assumptions. T intend to prove 
there is a place of punishment in the future world by a 
better authority than he is, and that is the Bible. 

The terms employed to designate this place of punish- 
ment are sheol, hades, gehenna and tartarus. 

Sheol is a Hebrew word, and corresponds to the ({reek 
word hades. I am free to admit that the words sheol 
and hades were sometimes used to designate the grave 
and death, but I propose to prove that they were also 
employed to represent a place of punishment. 

Grove's Greek Dictionary : ''Hades, the invisible 
world of spirits, the unseen place "of the dead generally, 
but vulgarly a place of torment, the abode of the damned, 
hell." This scholarly authority is good, but the Bible is 
far better, and to its infallible testimony I invite your 
attention. Ps. ix. 17 : "The wicked shall be turned into 
hell, and all the nations that forget God," It is sheer 



mr. daily's fifth speech. 283 

fully to attempt to explain this as meaning that they 
will enter the abode of the dead merely, for the righteous 
enter the same. Slieol can here mean nothing less than 
a place of punishment. Any effort to explain this away 
is only the rain trick of sophistry. Prov. xv. 24 : "The 
way of life is above to the wise, that he may depart from 
hell beneath." Depart is from the Hebrew soor, which 
means to turn. Sheol here cannot mean the grave or 
state of the dead in general/ for the righteous will enter 
that just as the wicked do. and there can be no departing 
from it on the part of any one. To say it means anything 
but a place of punishment would destroy the antithesis 
and do violence to the passage. Ps. !v. 15: "Let death 
seize upon them, and let them go down quick into hell: 
for wickedness is in their dwellings, and among them." 
Death is from the Hebrew mavpfli . and means the place 
or state of the dead. Slieol, therefore, cannot mean that 
in this text. David did not mean for them simply to be 
killed and taken to heaven because they were too wicked 
to live here. Tf he had been a Hniversalist he would 
have meant for them to be taken to heaven, because they 
were too wicked for him to manage. Prov. v. 4, 5 : "But 
her end is bittei as wormwood, sharp as a two-edged 
sword. Her feet go down to death, her steps take hold 
on hell/* Here we have the words death and hell in the 
same passage, from maveth and sheol. . Solomon, in 
warning against the strange woman, follows her to death 
and proceeds on to hell, declaring her end to be bitter as 
wormwood and sharp as a two-edged sword. Universal- 
ists dispute with Solomon, and declare there is no hell, 
and that the end of the profligate will be as sweet as the 
virtuous, Solomon was a wise man, but surely wisdom 



284 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

will die with Universalists ! 

I will now consider the use of hades and gehenna in 
the New Testament. Dead and death are not translated 
from hades. Grave is translated from it only once. Luke 
xvi. 22, 23 : "And it came to pass that the beggar died, 
and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom; 
the rich man died also and was buried; and in hell he 
lifted up his eyes being in torments.'' This hades could 
not have been the literal grave, for the eyes of the bodies 
in the grave are not open. It teaches there is a place of 
punishment after death. 

Rev. xx.: "13. And the sea gave up the dead which 
were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which 
were in them: and they were judged every man according 
to their works. 

"14. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. 
This is the second death. 

"15. And whosoever was not found written in the book, 
of life was cast into the lake of fire." 

An important distinction is made in this text between 
death, the state of the body and hell, the state of the 
soul. Death delivers up its dead, that is, the bodies 
are brought from a state of death by the resurrection, 
and hell (hades) delivers up its dead, the place of 
separate spirits in which the souls of the wicked 
have been held, delivers up those souls to be 
reunited with the bodies and receive their final doom. 
Then death and hell, that is, the bodies that have been 
held by death and the souls that have been kept in hades, 
shall be cast into a lake of fire which is the second death. 
This proves there is a place of punishment known by the 
term hades after death. 

The word most used in the New Testament to desig- 



MR. daily's FIFTH SPEECH. *&5 

nate a place of future punishment is gehenna. This term 
originally meant the valley of Hinnom, a place near the 
city of Jerusalem, where children were once cruelly sac- 
rificed to Moloch, the idol of the Amorites. It was after- 
wards held in horror and abomination, and was used as 
a place to cast carcasses of dead animals and malefactors, 
which were consumed by fire constantly kept up. As in 
process of time this place came to be considered as an 
emblem of hell, the term gehenna is frequently employed 
in the New Testament to designate a place of punish- 
ment reserved for the wicked in the future state. The 
fact is, it is never used in any other sense. In Liddell 
and Scott's Lexicon it is defined as a place of everlasting 
punishment, hell- fire, hell. In Grove's Greek Dictionary 
it is defined : Hell, hell- fire, the torments of hell. 

Matt, xxiii. 33: "Ye generation of vipers, how can ye 
escape the damnation of hell?" 

Damnation of hell Kriseos tes gehennes. Krises — 
judgment, condemnation, final punishment. This text 
teaches that the place where this punishment is inflicted 
is hell or gehenna. 

Luke xii.: "4. And I say unto you, my friends, Be not 
afraid of them that kill the body, and after that, have no 
more that they can do. 

"5. But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear 
him, which after he hath killed, hath power to cast into 
hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him." 

Matt, x.: "28. And fear not them which kill the body, 
but are not able to kill the soul; but rather fear him which 
is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." 

Here we have the destruction of the soul distinguished 
from the death of the body, and the place of punishment 
distinguished from the grave. Gehenna here cannot 
mean the valley of Hinnom, for any man who could kill 



286 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

the body as easily cast it into that valley. Both soul 
and body are spoken of as cast into hell. This casting 
into hell is after death. 

i. The hell here mentioned is entered after death. 
2. This hell cannot be the grave, for those who kill the 
body have power to bury it, 3. This hell is not the 
literal valley of Hinnom, for they had power to cast the 
bpdy there. 4. The Roman power is not meant, for 
that power could only kill the body. The only conclu- 
sion is that the hell mentioned is a place of punishment 
after death. 

1 am compelled to omit matter that 1 would like to 
use, for want of time. My friend would have us believe 
there is no such place as a hell of punishment that the 
Bible says so much about. He tries to persuade man- 
kind that they need not worry about that, that they can 
do anything or live any way and finally be as happy in 
heaven as the most devout. My friends, do not be de- 
ceived. They who live a life of sin and rebellion, dying 
in the love. and practice of sin, will finally reach a place 
of punishment in the future world. As sure as Jesus 
was not a deceiver in his teaching, there is a place into 
which the finally wicked will be cast, both soul and body. 
The unjust will be raised as well as the just, and will be 
cast into hell. This is the fate of those whose names are 
not written in the Lamb's book of life. All who love the 
Lord and love holiness and desire to live in the service 
of God have their names written there. 

(Time expired.) 



MR. HUGHES' FIFTH REPLY 287 



ME. HUGHES' FIFTH REPLY. 

» 

Respected Auditors — It is not necessary for me to 
go over again all that talk about Lazarus' bod}' . Suffice 
it to say that I have challenged Brother Daily to show a 
single instance where the phrase "the dead" means dead 
bodies in the graves, and he has not cited a single in- 
stance where that phrase so means. And it is important 
for him to find such a case and establish that as its gen- 
eral meaning, for the whole question turns on the phrase, 
"the resurrection of the dead/"' and we find that the 
dead are raised from Hades; and all my friend's chop 
logic won't save him here. The case of Lazarus was a 
special one, one has nothing to do with the final resur- 
rection. 

He says he has asserted that Christ's body was raised 
from the tomb, and has proved it over and over again. 
He is very profuse in his assertions, but always lacking 
in proof. My position is that I do not know what dis- 
posal was made of Christ's body, but that his real resur- 
rection was from Hades, and this I proved from both 
Peter and Paul, whose testimony Mr. Daily continu- 
ously slights. • Paul did not say that Christ's body was 
raised from the tomb, but from Hades. "Who shall de- 
scend into the deep {Hades) that is to bring Christ up 
from the dead/' Rom. x. 7. 

Again, he affirms that the prints of the nails prove the 
resurrection of Christ's body. My reply is, and has been, 
that he manifested himself in that form, just as he did 
in all those other forms in which his disciples did not 



288 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

recognize him till he made himself known to them, and 
in which there was no showing of his wounds. But what 
is most astounding is the fact that Mr. Daily's proposi- 
tion affirms that resurrection bodies are in a '"spiritual 
state," and now, without a word of explanation, he con- 
tradicts himself, and contends that Jesus' body was 
raised in a natural state with the wounds in his side, and 
hands, and feet ! This shows desperation on his part. 

I have. neither said nor intimated that the living spirit 
is sown into a body here, nor the planting of a living 
germ in the human body. It is the man that is sown, as 
the grain is sown. The man will be man in the resurrec- 
tion, soul and body, but with a spiritual body. For 
"thou sowest not that body which shall be." He will be 
"clothed upon with his house from heaven." II Cor. v. 
2. St. Paul evidently thinks the sowing of grain a good 
illustration of the resurrection, for that is his illustra- 
tion. But he does not make his illustration run on all 
fours, but the point or points of illustration only. So 
just as surely as men do not sow dead grain, so man's 
sowing is before death, and to make the "going down 
into death the sowing," is absurd, and is also the giving 
up the sowing to be the burial in the grave, which was 
Brother Daily's first contention. God giveth "it a body" 
cannot mean by any possibility God giveth the body a 
body, and no antecedent can be found for the pronoun it. 
There is none, and it is impersonal, whatever my friend 
may say concerning it. 

Brother Daily's "lesson in Greek" is quite pretentious, 
and savors not a little of pedantry. But in all he said 
he did not even attempt to prove that the word aion is 
derived from aei on, and that was what he was called 



MR. HUGHES' FIFTH RKPI.Y. 289 

w r^« . .: 
upon to do, and that is what I deny. Where is his au- 
thority? Mere buncombe does not pass in this debate. 
Dr. Schaff, author of Church History, translator of 
Lange's Commentary, and of the highest authority, says : 
"Aion probably comes from ao aeemi, to breathe, to 
blow, hence life, generation, age (like Latin aeoum) ; 
then indefinitely for endless duration, eternity." Lange's 
Com. Matt. xxv. 46. It will be seen here that Dr. Schaff 
does not bear out my learned friend in his "lesson in 
Greek," and that he consistently gives as the first and 
natural meaning of the word aion to be life, generation, 
age. 

Prof. Tayler Lewis says of aion that whenever the 
word means eternity, "it is the subject to which it is ap- 
plied that forces to this, not any etymological necessity 
in the word itself." So my friend best try another lesson 
in Greek, for both these great authors disagree with him. 
But he admits that the word aion sometimes means age. 
He could not well avoid a fact so evident. The first 
meaning given by the great majority of lexicographers is 
life, age, dispensation; and it is absurd to contend that 
they believed with Mr. Daily in the derivation of aion, 
and that its natural meaning is eternity. Common sense 
requires some things. 

The word aion is in the plural and rendered world 
and ages in the following passages: "Upon whom the 
ends of the world are come." I Cor. x. 11. "But now 
once in the end of the world hath he appeared, to put 
away sin by the sacrifice of himself." Heb. ix. 26. 
"That in the ages to come he might show the exceeding 
riches of his grace." Eph. ii. 7. "Even the mystery 
which hath been hid from ages and generations, but now 



290 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

is made manifest to his saints." Col. i. 26. In all these 
passages the word axon is rendered ages in the Revised 
Version. These show conclusively that the word is used 
in Scripture in the sense of age, and as there are many 
ages, so, also, in the plural number. Age succeeds age. 
and so many ages comprehend more time than one age. 
and so the use of the phrase axons of axons, ages of ages, 
to raise the conception to periods of time which compre- 
hend more than one age or period. This is the way thai 
Liddell and Scott explain the rise of the use of the 
phrase "ages of ages," and occasions those words from 
Eotherham in his Emphasized New Testament: "It is 
true that axon does not of itself mean absolute eternity. . 
otherwise it would not submit to be multiplied by itself, 
as in the familiar phrase, axons of axons, which would 
then be equivalent to 'eternities of eternities;' and it is 
further true that in the history of divine revelation, axon 
sometimes puts dispensations! limit upon itself, so far as 
that the dawn of a new axon or 'age* serves to close and 
exclude an old axon or age." This explanation and these 
authorities exclude friend Daily's attempted explanation 
of the plurals and reduplications of axon being only for 
emphasis. 

Mr. Daily is unfair, to say the least, in his reference to 
Liddell and Scott's definition of axon. They once used 
the word eternity to define that word, but in the seventh 
and last edition of their lexicon they have repudiated it, 
and the word eternity no longer occurs in their defini- 
tion. And my friend knows this, because I have so in- 
formed him. I wish now to also inform^ him that that 
lexicon no longer defines Gehenna as a place of "ever- 
lasting punishment, hellfire, hell," but "the valley of 



MR. HUGHES FIFTH RFPI^Y. 2QI 

Hinnom, which represents the place of future punish- 
ment/' only. 

As to the infinite moral turpitude of sin, his "argu- 
ment/' in the first place, was but a lot of assertions, with 
no proof whatever, and what he now says is no better. 
I hold that I completely" riddled those assertions so that 
he could do* no more than repeat what he said before. I 
supposed when I came here I was to be confronted with 
strong arguments, and not by mere assertions, repeated 
over and over again. Will he tell us how a finite being 
can be under an infinite obligation ? And will he reveal 
the profound secret of how it is a man is under obliga- 
tion to obey a law he does not understand, and which 
he has not the moral ability to obey? There is no hu- 
man government of that kind, and .to assert that such is 
the divine government is a slander on Almighty Glod. 
His doctrine that sin is infinite is contrary to Scripture, 
which teaches the doctrine of rewarding according to 
works, and the principle of degrees in guilt and punish- 
ment, /'That servant which knew his Lord's will, and 
prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, 
shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew 
not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be 
beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is 
given, of him shall much be required." Luke xii. 47, 48. 

Speaking of Paul's "hope towards God that there 
should be a resurrection of both the just and. the unjust," 
comes down with my friend to the poor and pitiable 
thing that his hope was no more than that he should be 



292 SKCOND PROPOSITION. 

among the just ! ! But this passage has been Brother 
Daily's chief reliance to prove a universal resurrection, 
for Paul hoped for the resurrection "both of the just and 
the unjust," and he says not a word about his place in 
the resurrection. But all at once my friend discovers 
that this passage proves too much for him, and he must 
let go of it in some way, and he stops not to belittle St. 
Paul's hope into a merely selfish one for himself alone. 
Paul did not say there would be such a universal resur- 
rection, but that he had hope towards God that there 
would be a resurrection both of the just and the unjust. 
And he had too large a heart to hope that any would be 
raised unjust and to eternal perdition. Paul's hope is 
expressed in these words: "As in Adam all die, even so 
in Christ shall all be made alive/' And so my friend's 
contrast does not extend to the resurrection. 

I come now to my friend's Tenth Argument. He be- 
gins by saying I have admitted that there will be a place 
of suffering in the future world, for if there is suffering 
there must be a place of suffering. That is very pro- 
found, indeed ! But men suffer in this world, and they 
may be in the very same place where other men are in en- 
joyment, and the place have nothing to do with the suf- 
fering. Surely not, if the suffering is moral or spiritual. 
But my friend must maintain a place of punishment, 
and he chooses to cail it hell. . Hell is a place, therefore, 
and not a state or condition. Let us see how long we 
can hold him there. You will remember, my friends, 
that I tried to get Mr. Daily to tell us how spiritual 
bodies were to be punished in the future state, and that 
he absolutely refused to tell us. But now it comes out 
that it is to be in a pluee, in a hell of fire. It is not 



MR. HUGHES FIFTH REPLY 293 

moral, nor is it spiritual, and it can only be corporal. 
And now I ask again, how can a spiritual or immaterial 
body be burned with fire? This audience, as well as 
myself, would like to have an answer. 

But we have the rich man again, and we are told he as 
yet had no body, that he was yet in the grave. He was a 
spirit, and hell is a place, but how could a spirit be con- 
fined in a place ? And yet he had a tongue, and craved a 
drop of water, for he was tormented in the flame of that 
hell. And all of this is history, according to my friend; 
and on this history he is trying to prove endless punish- 
ment for a large part of mankind. But how prove end- 
less punishment from the word Hades and its corre- 
sponding word. Sheol. which is to be destroyed? Alex- 
ander Campbell says : "It would be supremely absurd, 
and no scholar ever did affirm, that either Sheol or Hades 
did necessarily signify endless misery; because Sheol or 
Hades is to be destroyed.*" Thus speaks John: "Death 
and hell (Hades) were cast into the lake of fire." If it 
is to be destroyed, it cannot be a place of endless punish- 
ment. So far as the words Sheol and Hades are con- 
cerned, I might leave them here, for they cannot mean 
either a place or condition of endless punishment, nor 
can they, as long as the word "'0 Sheol, I will be thy 
destruction," stand in the Bible. Hosea xiii. 1.4. 

Further, I wish to observe that to these words ren- 
dered hell in the Bible there are no words of duration ap- 
plied. "We never read of an everlasting hell, nor of any 
one suffering in hell forever. Even to prove that hell is a 
place of punishment is very far from proving that the 
suffering is endless. Mr. Campbell also said of these 
words, Sheol, Hades and Gehenna : "They are noun sub- 



294 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

stantives, and, if fairly rendered, cannot express both 
the adjective endless and the substantive misery." I 
quote from Campbell and Skinner debate, pp. 70, 71. It 
is then absolutely impossible to prove endless punishment 
by the word hell alone. 

The only instance in which the word forever can even 
inferentially refer to the word hell is in the case of 
Jonah. But forever there means but three days and 
nights. He says: "I went down to the bottom of the 
mountains; the earth, with her bars, was about me for- 
ever." "Out of the belly of hell cried I, and thou heard- 
est my voice." Jonah ii. 2, 6. But this is not the only 
instance in which there has been deliverance from hell. 
David says : "The sorrows of hell compassed me about ; 
the snares of death prevented me. In my distress I 
called upon the Lord, and cried unto my God; he heard 
my voice out of his temple, and my cry came unto him." 
Ps. xviii. 5, 6. Again : "The sorrows of death com- 
passed me, and the pains of hell got hold upon me. I 
found trouble and sorrow." Ps. cxvi. 3. Once more : 
"Great is thy mercy towards me: and thou hast delivered 
my soul from the lowest hell." Ps. Ixxxvi. 13. In all 
these cases hell (sheol) means suffering in this life, and 
from it was deliverance, even from the "lowest hell." 
These are facts; they are this life's experiences, and their 
testimony is contrary to my friend's inferences that Sheol 
or Hades is a place- of endless punishment. 

The first occurrence of the word hell in the Bible is in 
Deut. xxxii. 22, and is the hell referred to in the parable 
of the rich man and Lazarus. For when the rich man 
asked that warning be sent to his brethren, that they 
might not come into his place of torment, Abraham 



MR. HUGHES' FIFTH REPLY. 295 

said : "Let them hear Moses and the Prophets." And 
this is the only place where Moses uses the word hell 
(sheol) as a symbol of punishment, and must hare been 
the reference intended. That temporal punishment was 
here meant, and of a national character, is perfectly evi- 
dent. "For a fire is kindled in mine anger, and shall 
burn unto the lowest hell, and shall consume the earth, 
with her increase, and set on fire the foundations of the 
mountains." It was to be burnt with hunger; the teeth 
of beasts was to be sent upon them, with the poison of the 
serpents of the dust: and all classes were to be involved 
in it. "the young man and the virgin, the suckling and 
the man of gray hairs.-' This could be no description of 
a future hell ; it is localized too plainly. 

The noted passage. "The wicked shall be turned into 
hell, and all the' nations that forget God" (Ps." ix. 17), 
of which Brother Daily says, in his very courteous and 
refined way. "Any effort to explain this away is only the 
vain trick of sophistry" — of course, then, I must not at- 
tempt to exp ] ain it away! But let us read the previous 
verse : "The Lord is known by the judgment which he 
executeth; the wicked is snared in the work of his own 
hands," Honestly, now, Brother Daily, is the Lord 
known by judgment which he executes here and now, or 
by one which he will execute some time perhaps in the 
far future ? Solomon says : "The righteous shall be 
recompensed in the earth, much more the wicked and 
the sinner." Prov. xi. 31. Is the wicked snared now in 
the work of bis own hands, or is he to be in your great 
judgment day. some thousands of years hence? "Yerily, 
there is a reward for the righteous; verily, he is a God 
that judgrth in the earth/' Ps. lviii. 11. And where is 



296 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

this hell into which the wicked is turned as the result 
of being "snared in the work of his own hands ?" What 
position did you take, or argument did you make, on this 
text, other than to cast a slur upon your opponent ? Was 
there a single word more ? 

A sudden cutting off from the earth for sin is consid- 
ered a punishment for sin, especially in the Old Testa- 
ment, and is a turning into Sheol, as in the text, "Let 
death seize upon them, and let them go down quick into 
hell (Sheol) ." A life of proflgacy tended to death, and 
consequently to Sheol, as in those texts cited by Brother 
Daily. "The fear of the Lord prolongeth days; but the 
years of the wicked shall be shortened." Pro v. x. 27. 
"Bloody and deceitful men shall not live out half their 
days." Ps. lv. 23. "Be not overmuch wicked, neither 
be thou foolish : why shouldst thou die before thy time ?" 
Eccl. vii. 27. 

I call your attention, my friends, to four statements 
made by Mr. Daily in his last speech : "That there is a 
place for the wicked to be punished in the future world, 
according to the Universalist creed, has been shown by 
Mr. Hughes." 

"If he (David) had been a Universalist, he would 
have meant for them to be taken to heaven, because they 
were too wicked for him to manage." 

"Universalists dispute with Solomon, and declare 
there is no hell, and that the end of the profligate will 
be as sweet as the virtuous." 

"My friend would have us believe there is no such 
place as a hell of punishment, that the Bible says so 
much about." 

Now, in these four statements Brother Daily misrepre- 



MR. HUGHKS' FIFTH REPLY 297 

sents me. and Universalists, in one way or the other. 
Either I believe in a place of future punishment, or I do 
not; If I do, he misrepresents me. If I do not, he mis- 
represents me. Has he done it designedly and mali- 
ciously, or is he reckless, has lost his head, and strikes 
out every way? If so, what right has he to pose as a 
great debater, of learning and ability, having the cour- 
tesy of a Christian gentleman? 

As to the word Gehenna, rendered hell twelve times 
in the New Testament, Brother Daily says rightly that 
it originally meant the valley of Hinnom, afterwards 
desecrated for the abomination committed there; that 
afterwards it became the emblem of hell. To this I de- 
mur, at least till two or three hundred years after Christ, 
and altogether as to its meaning in the Bible. Associ- 
ated with it came the idea of corruption, because of its 
defilement from the filth and offal of the city of Jerusa- 
lem. The filth bred worms, and to consume the offal 
continual fires were kept up, from whence arose the 
phrase, "where the worm dieth not and the fire is not 
quenched." 

The fires of Gehenna do not signify severe punish- 
ment, but purification, rather. Mark's expression, 
"Every one shall be salted with fire, and every sacrifice 
shall be salted with salt," comes in connection with his 
report of Christ's words concerning Gehenna, and con- 
firms this. So Pres. E. Milligan remarks : "As every 
sacrifice was seasoned with salt, the emblem of purity, 
so also must every one be purified, though the process 
may be as painful as passing through the fire." Analy- 
sis of New Testament, Mark ix. 49. This takes away 
the idea of vindictive punishment, and makes it impos- 



298 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

sible to use Gehenna as an emblem of endless punish- 
ment. 

Its general symbolic use is for a national punishment 
of the Jewish people for their rejection of the Messiah. 
It was only spoken of to the Jews, and no Gentile was 
ever threatened with Gehenna punishment. The prophet 
Jeremiah uses it effectively in his nineteenth chapter as 
a symbol of the destruction of Jerusalem, and their cap- 
tivity in Babylon. He was commanded to take an earth- 
en bottle, to go into the valley of the Son of Hinnom. 
and to prophesy to the people, and say: "I will bring 
evil upon this place, the whichsoever heareth his ears 
shall tingle." And that it should be called the valley 
of slaughter, and that their carcasses should be meat for 
the fowls of the air and the beasts of the earth : that the 
city should be made desolate and a hissing, and that they 
should eat the flesh of their sons and daughters in the 
straitness of the siege that should come upon them ; and 
that he should break the bottle, and gay, "So shall I 
break this people, and they shall bury in Tophet till 
there be no place to bury." 

In the same way Jesus denounces the Jewish people of 
his day, and cries against them, "Ye serpents, ye gen- 
eration of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of 
hell (judgment of Gehenna) ? Wherefore, behold, I 
send unto you prophets, and wise men. and scribes; and 
some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and 
persecute them from city to city: That upon you may 
come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from 
the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zachaiias, 
son of Baraehias, whom ye slew between the temple and 
the altar. Verily, I say unto you, all these things shall 



MR. HUGHES' FIFTH REPLY 299 

come upon this generation." Matt, xxiii. 33-36. Let it 
be marked here that this was not a hell, a place to which 
they were going, but to come upon them, and that before 
that generation should pass away. 

The destruction of both soul and body in Gehenna, lit- 
erally so, would be annihilation, and is as much against 
endless punishment as against universal salvation, and 
it is strange he should quote, as he does, without ex- 
planation. Sure it is there is not a word in it favorable 
to the doctrine of endless punishment. It seems to de- 
note complete temporal destruction of a national char- 
acter. It is similar in figure and expression to the pas- 
sage in Isa. x. 17, 18 : "And the light of Israel shall be 
for a fire, and his Holy One for a flame; and it shall 
burn and devour his thorns and his briers in one day, 
and shall consume the glory of his forests, and his fruit- 
ful field, both soul and body." This concerns the de- 
struction of the enemies of Israel, but it is complete, as 
indicated by the phrase "soul and body" but has no ref- 
erence to the future state. 

Mr. Daily so far has utterly neglected his proposition 
of endless punishment, and has been discussing future 
punishment. If he . is correct in saying that "Mr. 
Hughes has shown that the Universalist creed teaches 
future punishment/" why is he spending all his time in 
proving what is not disputed ? Perhaps he wants it to be 
understood he can prove something, if he cannot prove 
his proposition. Maybe, in his next speech, he will bring 
forth his proofs directly to the point, and to the real 
question. Better had he done so before, and more time 
could have been devoted to the texts that apply terms of 
duration to punishment. And he could do something 



300 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

more than merely quote texts without comment, or tak- 
ing positions upon them. That would be delate, and 
more instructive to our auditors. 
{Time expired.) 



ME. DAILY'S SIXTH SPEECH. 

Gentlemen Moderators, Respected Audience, 

Worthy Opponent — I appreciate the increased interest 
the people have taken in our discussion. It would have 
been well if all who are here this afternoon had been 
here the first day and eVery session of the discussion. I 
shall give some attention to our brother's remarks, made 
in the last speech, before taking up my regular line of 
argument. 

He says the case of Lazarus is a special one, and has 
nothing to do with the final resurrection. I proved by 
the case of Lazarus that the dead means the dead body 
in the grave., or in a state of death, wherever it may be. 
I also proved this by the body of Christ being spoken 
of as the dead. The dead spoken of in the Bible, when 
the corporeally dead are meant, always refers to the dead 
body, and never to the soul. The soul is living after the 
separation from the body, and the body only is dead, and 
it is sheer nonsense to say it is the living soul that is 
meant, and not the dead body, when the term "the dead" 
is employed. 



MR. DAILY'S SIXTH SPEECH. 301 

It is strange that he continues to assert that Christ's 
body was not raised from the dead. This can only be 
accounted for on the ground that his case is a desperate 
one, so he clings desperately to this hobby in the face of 
all the plain declarations of the word of God. Proof 
that Christ's body was raised means the destruction of 
the whole fabrication of universalism, and my opponent 
knows it. I think he is conscious that I have abundantly 
proved that fact, but it is necessary for him to keep up 
an appearance. He says "Paul did not say that Christ's 
body was raised from the grave, but from Hades." Well, 
this is an admission that Christ's body was raised, after 
all. Evidently if it was raised from Hades, it was raised, 
and if it was raised, it was raised from the grave, for 
that was where it was laid. He quotes, as supposed 
proof that Christ's body was not raised, after admitting 
it was, the following : "Who shall descend into the deep 
(Hades) ? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the 
dead.)'' The word "deep" in this text is not from 
Hades, but from ahusson, the meaning of which is abyss. 
The abyss of death held the body of Christ, and not his 
soul. While the body of Christ was held by the abyss 
of death it was in the tomb. The angel plainly explained 
the meaning of bringing up Christ from the dead when 
he said, "He is not here, but is risen." Luke xxiv. 6. 
The place referred to was the tomb which the disciples 
had visited. That which, was not there was the body of 
Christ, so the body of Christ was risen. 

The wounds in the side, hands and feet of Christ show 
that it was his body, the very one that was nailed to the 
cross, that was raised from the dead. It was not now 
subject to death any more, but was spiritualized. 



302 • SECOND PROPOSITION. 

Though spiritualized, his body was not a spirit separate 
and apart from the body that was nailed to the cross, for 
he said, "Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I my- 
self ; handle me, and see ; for a spirit hath not flesh and 
bones as ye see me have." ■ 

He says he did not say that the living spirit was sown 
into a body here, but that it is the man that is sown, the 
man, both soul and body. Into what is the man sown as 
the grain is sown? I understood him to say that man 
was sown in this world before death. When Paul says, 
"Thou sowest not that body which shall be," lie simply 
criticises the illustration of seed sowing, for he proceeds 
to show that in the resurrection the body sown is the one 
that is resurrected. In saying '"'God givet]i it a body as 
it hath pleased him," he speaks of the grain sown, lie 
says no antecedent can be found for "It," but the apostle 
says "and to every seed its own body." He gives the 
antecedent in this sentence, and so the pronoun is not 
impersonal. My friend would not have called the pro- 
noun impersonal if he had not been hard pressed. Every 
scholar knows it is not. 

He calls my lesson in Greek on the word (don mere 
buncombe. He is not able to show it to be incorrect, 
and so all he can say is "buncombe." That is the very 
best the poor fellow can do with the lesson, and so I am 
not disposed to censure him for it. He quotes the opin- 
ion of Dr. Schaff, who says the word is probably from 
ao aemi, to breathe, to blow. How any one can get gen- 
eration and age from breathe or blow, is strange. In- 
stead of the word probably coming from any such root, 
it is extremely improbable. I refer to Powers' work on 
Universalism, page 273, to the Exhaustive Concordance 



mr. da;ly s sixth speech. 303 

of the Bible, by James Strong, S. T. D., LL. D., to An- 
thon's Greek Grammar, or any other standard Greek 
grammar, as authority for the lesson I gave Mr. Hughes, 
for which he seems so ungrateful. After all, Schaff gives 
the meaning of a ion as endless duration, eternity. So 
he supports my opinion, though he seems to think that 
probably the word comes from a different Greek root. 

He says aion is in the plural. He is wrong about that. 
Aion is a singular substantive. The plural form is 
aiones. 1 have already answered his effusion on the 
meaning of the plural form of aion, showing it to be a 
mere intensive form of expression, importing no more 
than the singular. Aiones aionon, ages of ages, means 
the same as aion, ever being, or being forever. Thus we 
say "forever" to express endless duration, but may add 
to that and say "forever and ever," not to express a 
longer period of duration, but to emphasize and intensify 
the idea. A mere tyro in philology ought to know that. 
He says "common .-ense requires some things,'" and I 
agree with him. Where he gets the phrase "aion of 
aions'' is a mystery to me. He will yet convince us all 
that he knows nothing about the Greek, I fear. 

A finite being can be under an infinite obligation to 
obey an infinite being, because that being is infinite. A 
-in against such a being is infinite in its moral turpi- 
tude, because it is against an infinite being. Beaten 
with many or few stripes refers to the people of God and 
his dealings with them under the parental government 
here, and has no reference to the punishment due to sin 
to be inflicted hereafter upon rebels who die in the love 
and practice of sin. 

I am sure that Paul's hope was to be among the just 



304 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

in the general resurrection mentioned. by him. He could 
not have hoped to be among the unjust. Though Mr. 
Hughes calls this a "j)oor and pitiable thing/ 7 it is an 
unanswerable fact. My contrast does extend to the res- 
urrection, for it is plainly stated that both the just and 
unjust would be raised. The unjust, then will not be 
made just at any time between death and the resurrec- 
tion, and my friend has utterly failed to show that any 
change will be made after that event. 

He says there is place of punishment, but thinks the 
wicked and righteous will all be mixed up together in 
one place after death. Yet he has argued that the 
righteous will be resurrected to immortality and glory, 
while the wicked will have to pass through a kind of 
purgatory till they repent and believe, after which they 
will be raised, too. Evidently "the legs of the lame are 
not equal." 

In my last speech I made an argument in which I ex- 
plained what was meant by the casting of death and hell 
into the lake of fire, which has not been touched by all 
my friend has said about the destruction of death and 
hell. That hell is used sometimes to represent trials and 
sufferings here is not questioned, but that has nothing 
whaterer to do with my arguments on the place of pun- 
ishment. Mr. Hughes ignores those arguments, and pre- 
fers to spend his time on matters that do not have any 
reference to them. He is safer to keep away from the 
arguments. 

All he says about being recompensed in the earth goes 
for nothing in the face of the fact that he has taken the 
position that the finally wicked will also be recompensed 
in the world to come. In the discussion of his proposi- 



MR. DAILY'S SIXTH SPEECH. 305 

tion it will be remembered that he utterly failed to show 
there would be any change in this class after death. His 
failure in that renders him rather desperate in the dis- 
cussion of this proposition. 

After pronouncing the woe upon the wicked Scribes 
and Pharisees, who were hypocrites, saying, "How shall 
ye escape the damnation of hell" (gehenna), Christ 
threatens the Jewish nation with a special destruction. 
This is no proof that the hell spoken of meant the de- 
struction of Jerusalem. Only those having a weak cause 
will resort to such subterfuge. The Jews believed in a 
future punishment in hell. Jesus thus teaches the truth- 
fulness of that by denouncing the Scribes and Pharisees 
and pronouncing this woe upon them. Dr. Gill informs 
us that the phrase "damnation of hell'" was often used 
by the Jews in their Talmud and Midi ashes, by which 
they meant future torment. Jesus would have corrected 
this had it been erroneous, but instead of doing that he 
used the phrase in the same way himself. This is unmis- 
takable proof of the truthfulness of the doctrine. No- 
where did Jesus say there was no such place as future 
punishment in helJ, but on the contrary he taught 
there is. 

To refer the statement, "Fear him which is able to de- 
stroy both soul and body in hell,' 7 to the destruction of 
Jerusalem is too ridiculous to really demand notice. 
How could the soul and body both be destroyed in that 
calamity? My friend argues this destruction means an- 
nihilation, so I suppose he thinks the souls and bodies of 
all the Jews who were besieged in Jerusalem were anni- 
hilated. Then how about all being finally holy and 
happy in heaven? His argument refutes itself. The 



3°6 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

word destroy is from the same Greek word as perish, in 
Eom. ii. 12: "For as many as have sinned without law 
shall also perish without law." That this does not mean 
annihilation is plain from the eighth verse : "But unto 
them that be contentious, and do not obey the truth, but 
obey unrighteousness, (he will render) indignation and 
wrath, tribulation and anguish, upon every son! of man 
that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile." 
This shows that the words perish or destroy, which arc 
translated from the same Greek Avoid, do not mean an- 
nihilation, but signify a state of tribulation and anguish, 
indignation and wrath. So this Greek word in the text, 
"But rather fear him who is able to destroy both soul and 
body in hell," signifies a plunging of both soul and body 
into a state of indignation and wrath, tribulation and an- 
guish, after the death of the body. The fact that it is 
after the death of the body shows that the destruction of 
Jerusalem cannot be meant. 

Argument XL My next argument is that the wicked 
are sent away or doomed to punishment at the same time 
that the righteous are blessed with future felicity. 

Matt. vi. 38-43. 

"38. The field is the world; the good seed are the chil- 
dren of the Kingdom; but the tares are the children of 
the wicked one; 

"39. The enemy that sowed them is the Devil; the 
harvest is the end of the world; and the. reapers are the 
angels. 

"40. As, therefore, the. tares are gathered and burned 
in the fire, so shall it be in the end of this world. 

"41. The Son of Man shall send forth his angels, and 
they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, 
and them which do iniquity; 

"42. And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there 



MR. DAILY S SIXTH SPKECH. 307 

shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. 

"43. Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in 
the Kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let 
him hear." 

The end of the world can mean nothing more or less 
than the end of time. The gospel dispensation had al- 
ready been ushered in. 

II Thess. i. 6-10. 

"6. Seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recom- 
pense tribulation to them that trouble you; 

"7. And to you who are troubled, rest with us, when 
the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from Heaven with his 
mighty angels ; 

"8. In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know 
not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus 
Christ: 

"9. Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction 
from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his 
power ; 

"10. When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, 
and to be admired in all them that believe (because our 
testimony among you was believed) in that day." 

This cannot refer to the destruction of Jerusalem try 
Titus, for it was addressed to a Gentile city, that could 
not possibly be affected by that calamity. 

Having proved that there is a place of punishment in 
the future world, and that the wicked will be consigned 
to that place at the same time that the righteous are 
blessed with endless felicity, I advance to my twelfth ar- 
gument. 

•Argoiext XII. My twelfth argument is that the fu- 
ture punishment of the wicked is represented in the 
Scriptures as their end. An important question is asked 
in I Peter iv. 17 : "What shall the end be of them that 
obev not the gospel of God?" Eeference is had in this 



308 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

question to those who despise the gospel, with enmity in 
their herats toward God. David was puzzled about their 
end till he went into the sanctuary of God. There lie 
learned it. 

Ps. lxxiii. 12-20. 

"12. Behold, these are the ungodly, who prosper in the 
world; they increase in riches. 

"13. Verily, I have cleansed my heart in vain, and 
washed my hands in innocency. 

"14. For all the day long have I been plagued, and 
chastened every morning. 

"15. If I say, I will speak thus; behold, I should offend 
against the generation of thy children. 

"16. When I thought to know this, it was too painful 
for me; 

"17. Until I went into the sanctuary of God; then un- 
derstood I their end. 

"18. Surely, tbou didst set them in slippery places: 
thou castedst them down into destruction. 

"19. How are they brought into desolation, as in a 
moment! they are utterly consumed with terrors. 

"20, As a dream when one awaketh; so, O Lord, when 
thou awakest, thou shalt despise their image." 

No wonder Balaam, in poetic strains, said, "Let mo die 
the death of the righteous, and let my last end be like 
his." If universalism were true, the end of the wicked 
would be as desirable as the end of the righteous, for the 
end of both, especially the last end. would be the same. 

Rom. vi. 21, 22. 

"21. What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye 
are now ashamed? for the end of these things is death. 

"22. But now, being made free from sin, and become 
servants to God % ye have your fruit unto holiness and the 
end everlasting life." 

Since this is the end of the ungodly, it is their final 
state. 



mr. daily's sixth speech. 309 

As death is here opposed to life, and as temporal 
death is the end of the most godly in the time state, it 
is clearly absurd to restrict the meaning of the word 
death here to the temporal death of the body. It fol- 
lows that the end of a sinful life persistently followed 
here is death in antithesis to everlasting life. Accord- 
ing to Universalism, sin leads to punishment, punish- 
ment leads to reformation, and reformation leads to 
everlasting life. To teach that doctrine Paul would 
have to say, "The end of those things is life." 

Phill. iii. 18, 19: 

18 (For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and 
now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the 
cross of Christ; 

19 Whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, 
and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly 
things. ) 

• Universal isni would say, oh, no; they will surfer de- 
struction temporarily, hut their end will be salvation the 
same as the righteous. 
Heb. vi. 7-9: 

7 For the earth which drinketh in the rain that cometh 
oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them by 
whom it is dressed, receiveth blessing from God: 

8 But that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, 
and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned. 

9 But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, 
and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak. 

Some are represented here as bearing thorns and 
briers. Tt is declared that their end is to be burned. 
Paul is persuaded better things of others, things that ac- 
company salvation. Will the state of burning be the end 
of any ? What do you say, Brother Hughes ? If you say 
it will not, you contradict the word of God. If you say 



3IO SECOND PROPOSITION. 

it will, you yield the point and admit your defeat. If 
you say nothing about it, the audience will know you are 
afraid to commit yourself one way or the other. 

Argument XIII. My thirteenth argument is that the 
punishment of the wicked is their portion. 

Ps. xi. 5, 6: 

5 The Lord trieth the righteous : but the wicked, and him 
that loveth violence, his soul hateth. 

6 Upon the wicked he shall rain snares, fire and brim- 
stones, and an horrible tempest: this shall he the portion of 
their cup. 

One's portion is that which is assigned him in the 
final settlement of an estate. It is nowhere said that 
the portion of the wicked is salvation or everlasting life. 
It is plainly stated that suffering under snares, fire, and 
brimstone, and an horrible tempest, is the portion or lot 
of the wicked. 

Argument XIV. My fourteenth and last arugment is 
that it is clearly taught in the Bible not only that the 
punishment of the wicked is their end and their portion, 
but that it is eternal, to last forever, and therefore end- 
less. 

Matt. xxv. 31-41: 

31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all 
the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne 
of his glory: 

32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he 
shall separate them one from another, as a. shepherd divid- 
eth his sheep from the goats: 

33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the 
goats on the left. 

34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, 
Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom pre- 
pared for you from the foundation of the world: 

$ * * * * * * 



MR. DAILY S SIXTH SPEECH. 31 1 

41 Then shall he say unto them on the left hand, Depart 
from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the 
devil and his angels. 

I call your attention to two classes in this lesson, into 
which the people are to he divided when all nations &re 
gathered before him. There is no period or event in the 
history of the race of mankind when all nations will he 
gathered before God but the final gathering of all the 
human race together. There will then he a separation 
of the two classes one from the other, and the Lord will 
say to those on the left hand, "Depart from me, ye 
cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and 
his angels." Pur to aionion — fire the everlasting. This 
is not a mistranslation. The Greek word expresses the 
endless duration of God's existence, the endless duration 
of the happiness of the righteous, and by no rule of lan- 
guage can it he construed to express anything else than 
the final and endless punishment of the wicked. To ex- 
plain away such a plain passage would authorize one to 
explain away every passage that re ] ates to God's con- 
tinued existence, and the durability of the joys of the 
righteous, and would he a long stride in the road of in- 
fidelity. 

Matt, xviii. 8: It is better for thee to enter into life halt 
or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet, to be 
cast into everlasting fire. 

In this passage the phrase pur to aionion (fire the 
everlasting) is found, which is correctly translated in 
our common version. 

Matt. xxv. 46: And these shall go away into everlasting 
punishment: but the righteous into life eternal. 

Everlasting punishment is from kolasin aionion (Jco- 
lasma, chastisement, punishment). Life eternal is from 



312 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

zoen aionion (zoe, life). Here life and punishment are 
qualified by the very same expletive, making the dura- 
tion of each to be the same. 

Mark iii. 29: But he that shall blaspheme against the 
Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eter- 
nal damnation. 

"Hath never forgiveness" is from ouk echei aphesin 
eis ton aiona. This, literally rendered, is "not hath for- 
giveness to the eternity." The word eternal in this text 
is from aionion. If there had been no eternal damna- 
tion, Christ would not have deceived us by using the 
term. 

II Thes. i. 9: Who shall be punished with everlasting 
destruction from the presence of the Lord. 

Heb. vi. 2: Of the resurrection of the dead and of eter- 
nal judgment. 

Jude xii. 7: Suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. 

All these passages simply indicate that the punish- 
ment of the wicked will be as lasting as the existence of 
God or the joys of the righteous. If God is to endure 
forever as the sovereign ruler of the universe, and if the 
teaching of the scriptures be true that our vile bodies 
will be changed and fashioned like unto the glorious 
body of our Saviour, when we shall see him as he is and 
be like him, when that which we have been anticipating 
will go on forever, just as sure as God will endure for- 
ever and the happiness of the righteous will never end, 
that sure will the punishment of the wicked be everlast- 
ing as described by the same Greek word. 

Time expired. 



MR. HUGHES SIXTH REPLY 313 



ME. HUGHES' SIXTH EEPLY. 

Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen — 
Mr. Daily tells us that he proved by the case of Lazarus 
"that the dead means the dead body in the grave, or in 
the state of death, wherever that may be." Of course, 
he does not mean to prevaricate; but he is very greatly 
mistaken. The facts are, he engaged to prove the resur- 
rection of the natural body in a spiritual state, and he 
has endeavored to do so by the Bible teaching concerning 
the "resurrection of the dead." But when challenged to 
show a single case where the phrase "the dead" means 
"dead bodies in the grave," he has never been able to pro- 
duce a single text with that phrase in it with that mean- 
ing. There are no such cases. Lazarus was not called 
"the dead." He could not be. His was but a single, spe- 
cial case, and "the dead" are a definite multitude, mean- 
ing all the dead. The dead are dead to us; we call them 
dead, but they are alive to God. "God is not a God of 
the dead, but of the living, for all live unto him." Luke 
xx. 38. He is a God of those dead to us, but not a God 
of dead bodies in the grave. Of what avail is it, there- 
fore, to contend that "'the dead" means dead bodies in 
the graves, when Jesus, reason and common sense teach 
so emphatically to the contrary. 

But the "abyss is the abyss of death !" He starts out 
with the idea of Christ's resurrection from the grave, but 
now it is the "abyss of death!" My friend shows great 
dexterity in shifting his ground when necessity demands 



314 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

it. Paul meant by the abyss Hades, just as Peter did 
when he said, "He — Christ — was not left in Hades." 

When contending that the very body nailed to the cross 
was the one Jesus showed to Thomas, he runs athwart 
the tremendous absurdity that a spiritual body, or, as he 
explained it, an immaterial body, can have wounds in it ; 
and as Jesus is the example, so all humanity will rise 
with their wounds and deformities! Could desperation 
go farther? 

To make body the antecedent of the pronoun it, my 
opponent is forced to make Paul criticise his own illsu- 
tration of seed sowing. For it is his illustration, and he 
was too profound a man to stultify himself in such a 
manner. And no "it" can be found for "the body which 
shall be." 

For a man in debate, who is expected to prove his 
points, to make a great flourish over a mere assertion, 
which he knows his opponent, who stands on an equal 
footing with himself, denies, there is no word which ex- 
presses its mighty emptiness more appropriately than 
buncombe, and the "poor fellow" would choose "censure" 
rather than pity from such a source. 

1 gave Dr. Schaif and Prof. Tayler Lewis as authori- 
ties on the derivation of aion ; and you, my hearers, can 
judge who stands highest in the learned world, these men 
or my friend, Elder John E. Daily. He refers to some 
names, but he gives no quotations from them, and, there- 
fore, he stands alone in his "Greek lesson.*' 

"But how can any one get generation and age from 
breathe or blow?" They do not, but first life, then gen- 
eration, age, which is perfectly legitimate and natural. 
But, says Brother Daily, "Schaff gives the meaning of 



MR. HUGHES' SIXTH REPLY 315 

aion as endless duration, eternity." Another blunder, for 
it can be but a blunder. It misrepresents Dr. Sehaff, and 
it shall not pass without proper exposure. Dr. Schaff 
uses aion in its first form, and not in its plural form, 
aio ncis. and after giving its derivation from ao aemi, to 
breathe, to blow : then said, "hence life, generation, age, 
then indefinitely, for endless duration, eternity." He 
does not make eternity to be its first and natural mean- 
ing, which is Brother Daily's position, but first and nat- 
urally life, generation, age, and then indefinitely, end- 
less duration, eternity. 

Archbishop Trench, in defining axon, says: "Aiohes, 
in I Tim. i. 17, must denote not the worlds in the usual 
concrete meaning of the term, but according to the more 
usual temporal meaning of aion in the New Testament, 
the ages, the temporal periods, whose sum and aggregate 
adumbrate the mighty conception of eternity." New 
Testament. Synonyms, p. 133. The more usual meaning 
of aion in the New Testament, according to this high 
authority, is temporal periods, ages, and the sum of them 
adumbrate, give a faint shadow of the mighty concep- 
tion of eternity. And I am correct in saying that the 
first meaning of aion is not eternity, and that use of- its 
plurals and reduplications is to increase the sense of 
duration, and not simply, as Mr. Daily says, for empha- 
sis. He says scholars agree to this, but he has not quoted 
any; and I have given several. That is the difference 
between proof and bald assertions. 

(anon Farrar says: "Aion, Hebrew olam, means 
properly an age, an indefinite period, long or short. The 
phrases which are asserted to imply endlessness are again 
and again used of things which have long since ceased 



316 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

to exist. If axon meant eternity, how came it to have a 
plural (aiones, olamin), and how came the Jews to talk 
of forever and beyond? The latter alone was decisive to 
the clear mind of Origen. He says the authority of the 
Holy Scriptures taught him that the word rendered eter- 
nity meant limited duration. The word by itself. 
whether adjective or substantive, never means endless." 
Mercy and Judgment^ p. 378. This is another testimony 
in my favor. 

Mr. Daily has not quoted a single lexicon or authority 
which gives eternity as the first meaning of axon. The 
universal usage of the word forbids it. It only means 
eternal duration when the nature of the subject or the 
thing to which it is applied forces to it. The word itself 
cannot decide punishment to he endless. Proof must 
come from something stronger than the words axon, aion- 
ios. The best of learning assert this. So Mr. Rother- 
ham, in his Emphasized New Testament, says: "Upon 
the aionion correction (everlasting punishment, Matt, 
xxv. 46) no arbitrary limit can be laid, unless, indeed. 
the essential nature of 'corrrection' implies it : aionxos ut- 
terly refuses to settle the dread question." 

Dr. Milton Terry, professor of Christian Doctrine in 
Garrett Bible Institute, assert-: "No positive or satis- 
factory conclusion touching the future destiny of the soul 
can be reached by the etymology or the suggestions of 
any one word. Even the significant word eternal, aion- 
ios. is insufficient in itself to determine such a question/' 
Biblical Dogmatics, p. 134. 

And Prof. Tayler Lewis puts it thus strongly: "The 
preacher, in contending with the l niversalist or Restora- 
tionist, would commit an error, and, maybe, suffer a 



MR. HUGHES SIXTH REPLY 317 

failure in his argument, should he lay the whole stress of 
it 011 the etymological or historical significance of the 
words aion, aionios, and attempt to prove that of them- 
selves they necessarily carry the meaning of endless dura- 
tion." Lange's Com. Eccl., p. 48. 

These concessions come from believers in endless pun- 
ishments. If truth had not compelled them, they would 
not have been made ; and they are vastly important in ex- 
plaining passages where the words everlasting and eternal 
are applied to punishment. Take, now, in view of them, 
the passage most relied upon, Matt. xxv. 46, "These shall 
go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous 
into life eternal. 7 ' Both everlasting and eternal are 
translations from aionios, rendered eternal in both cases 
in the Revised Version. Punishment is certainly de- 
clared, but the only proof of its duration is in the word 
aionios. But if that word does not mean absolutely end- 
less, then that doctrine is not proved ; nor can it be 
proved by any passage by the force of this word where it 
is applied to punishment. 

The word from which the word punishment here 
comes is kolasis, defined by Liddell and Scott, "a prun- 
ing or checking the growth of trees. 2. Chastisement, 
correction, punishment/' Bishop Wescott says of this 
word : "The familiar classical distinction between timo- 
ria, which regarded the retributive suffering, and kolasis, 
which regarded the disciplinary chastisement of the 
wrong-doer, was familiar with the Alexandrian Greeks." 
So Clement, teacher in the theological school at Alexan- 
dria; testifies: * Punishment (kolasis) is for the good 
and advantage of him who is being punished, for it is the 
amendment of one who resists; but vengeance (timoria) 



318 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

is a requital of evil sent for the interest of the avenger. 
Now he would not desire to avenge himself on us, who 
teaches to "pray for those who despitefully use us." The 
punishment is chastisement, meant for correction, and 
cannot therefore be endless. 

But Brother Daily says it is the word which is applied 
to the existence of God, and therefore must mean end- 
less. So the Jew might say that the Mosaic Covenant is 
never to end because the word everlasting is applied to it, 
as it is applied to God. But what sense would there be 
in it? But he also claims it defines the endless joys of 
the righteous. But I have before shown you that eternal 
expresses the kind of life, and not its duration. I quoted 
from Jesus, "This is eternal life, that they might know 
thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou 
hast sent." Jno. xvii. 3. These words define the qual- 
ity of this life. But he says again, "knowledge is not 
life," but this true knowledge of God and Christ is eter- 
nal life, notwithstanding Brother Daily's contradiction. 
St. John says: "Beloved, let us love one another, for 
love is of God, and every one that loveth is born of God 
and knoweth God." I John iv. 7. The knowledge which 
comes from the birth from above, and unites the soul to 
God and Christ, is eternal life, and is the precious pos- 
session of the true Christian now, and his present en- 
joyment. "He that heareth my words, and belie veth on 
him that sent me, hath eternal life, and shall not come 
into condemnation, but is passed from death unto life." 
John v. 24. "We know we have passed from death unto 
life, because we love the brethren." I John iii. 14. 
There is no question about it. This is the life of God in 
the soul, as Jesus defines it, and he was not speaking of 



MR. HUGHES' SIXTH REPLY 319 

its duration. "'And we know him that is true, and we 
are in him that is true; even in his Son, Jesus Christ. 
This is the tiue God and eternal life." I John v. 20. 

But Mr. Daily thinks this punishment is to be award- 
ed in a judgment at the end of the world. For at no 
other time will "all nations" be gathered together. Why 
all nations, then ? He has contended strenuously that 
all nations does not mean all mankind. If so, why does 
it now? The phrase "all nations'* and its parallel 
phrases, "all families" and "all the kindreds of the 
earth/* in the promise to Abraham, he denies means all 
men. Even that very comprehensive phrase, "All the na- 
tions whom thou hast made,** he disputes; and why does 
it so mean now? Because it suits him now; then it did 
not. He has a case to make out, and the demands are 
very gieat ! ! I know men can be so bound up in a creed 
as to bow down to it like a slave to his master. I pity the 
man, but 1 confess I despise the creed that so befogs a 
man of otherwise good judgment. 

The time of this judgment is not at the end of the 
world, but during Christ's reign, and begins when Christ 
comes in his kingdom. "The Son of Man shall come in 
the glory of his Father, with his angels, and then he 
shall reward eveiy one according to his works. Verily, 
I say unto you, there be some standing here which shall 
not taste of death till they see the Son of Man coming- 
in his kingdom." Matt. xvi. 27, 28. It seems impossi- 
ble for one to read tins passage and not see that this 
coming is past and that Christ now sits upon his throne 
of judgment, as prophesied by Jeremiah; "Behold, the 
days come, saith the Lord, that I will raise unto David a 
righteous branch, and a king shall reign and prosper, 



320 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth." 
Jer. xxiii. 5. According to Isaiah, Christ's kingdom was 
to be "established with judgment/' and he was to "set 
judgment in the earth." Isa. ix. 7, xiii. 4. 

There is not, therefore, to be a spectacular judgment 
scene at the end of Christ's reign, for then he will give 
up his kingdom, and be no ]onger a judge. "Then com- 
eth the end, when he shall have delivered up the king- 
dom to God the Father." I Cor. xv. 24. 

But he says this is a final division of mankind into 
two classes. Let him count again. There are three 
classes, and so it is not his final judgment. There are 
those on the right hand, those on the left, and the Lord's 
brethren. "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of 
the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." 
"Inasmuch as ye did it not unto the least one of tliese, 
ye did it not to me." This points out the three classes 
and spoils my friend's division of the world into two 
classes. This is a judgment of the nations. Before him 
shall be gathered all nations, and he shall separate 
them." 

The "everlasting fire" of verse 41 is the same as the 
"eternal correction" in verse 46. So is "the furnace 
of fire, when the Lord shall send his messengers" and 
"gather out of his kingdom those who work iniquity." 
Matt. xiii. 42. These must have been first in his king- 
dom before they could have been gathered out. The 
"end of the world" here is the end of the age (it is 
axon), and never means the end of the material world. 
"Now once in the end of the 'world hath Christ appeared 
to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself." Heb. ix. 26. 
Axon is the word my friend depends upon for eternity, 



MR. HUGHES SIXTH REPLY 32 1 

but we see it has an end. Christ came to cast fire on the 
earth, and he said, "What will I if it be already kindled/' 
But this is the fire of correction, for "he shall sit as a 
refiner and purifier of silver, and he shall purify the sons 
of Levi." Mai. iii. 3. The earth bearing "thorns and 
briers" is burned, not for its destruction, but to fit it for 
production, and so is a figure for man's correction. 
Who, "if his works are burned, shall suffer loss, but him- 
self be saved, yet so as by fire." Hos. iii. 15. 

The figure of fire for purification is a common one in 
the Old Testament. "The Lord's fire is in Zion, and his 
furnace in Jerusalem." Isa. xxxi. 9. "When the Lord 
shall have washed away the filth of the daughters of Zion 
and shall have purged the blood of Jerusalem from the 
midst thereof by the spirit of judgment and the spirit 
of burning." Isa. iv. 4. So the word came to Ezekiel : 
"Son of man, the house of Israel is to me become dross; 
all they are brass, and tin, and iron, and lead, in the 
midst of the furnace; they are even the dross of silver. 
Therefore, thus saith the Lord God: Because ye are 
become dross, behold, therefore, will I gather you in the 
midst of Jerusalem. As they gather silver, and brass, 
and lead, and tin, into the midst of the furnace, to blow 
the fire upon it, and to melt it, so will I gather you in 
mine anger and in my fury, and I will leave you there, 
and melt you. Yea, I will gather you and blow upon 
you in the fire of my wrath, and ye shall be melted in 
the midst thereof. As silver is melted in the midst of 
the furnace, so shall ye be melted in the midst thereof; 
and ye shall know that I the Lord have poured out my 
fury upon you." Ezek. xxii. 18-22. 

There is no stronger or more fearful passage in all the 



3*2 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

Bible. It is a furnace of fire, and it is in Jerusalem. 
Not an endless hell in the future world, but corrective 
judgment, for "I will scatter thee among the heathen, 
and disperse thee in the countries, and will consume thy 
filthiness out of thee." Ezek. xxii. 15. 

We find also the parallel of the "everlasting destruc- 
tion from the presence of the Lord and the glory of his 
power" (II Thess. i. 9), quoted by Brother Daily, in Jer. 
xxiii. 39, 40 : "Therefore, behold, I will utterly forget 
you, and I will forsake you, and the city I gave you and 
your fathers, and cast you out of my presence ; and I will 
bring an everlasting reproach upon you, and a perpetual 
shame which shall not be forgotten." Here the language 
is just as strong as Paul's, and yet it meant no more than 
seventy years of captivity in Babylon; and their present 
state has been of much longer duration, of which Jesus 
said: "Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. 
For I say unto you, ye shall not see me henceforth till 
ye shall say, blessed is he that cometh in the name of the 
Lord." Matt, xxiii. 38,. 39. And this is just after Jesus 
had pronounced the "judgment of Gehenna upon .them, 
which should come before that generation should pass 
away. 

This "judgment of Gehenna** also finds its parallel in 
Isa. lxvi. 23, 24: "And it shall come to pass that from 
one new moon to another, and from one Sabbath to an- 
other, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the 
Lord. And they shall go forth and look upon the car- 
casses of the men that have transgressed against me; 
for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be 
quenched; and they shall be an abhorrence unto all 
flesh." This I have before shown from Jer. xix. 1-15 



MR. HUGHES' SIXTH REPLY 323 

and Matt, xxiii. 32-36, is a symbol of complete national 
punishment, ''both sonl and body/' as that term is used 
in Isa. x. 18, "And shall consume the glory of his for- 
est, and of his fruitful field, both soul and body." And 
it is a punishment in time and on the earth, when these 
new moons, and Sabbaths, and dead bodies lying un- 
buried; and it cannot be applied to an endless hell, and 
men are, in "immaterial" bodies, not subject to fire or 
worms. 

It is not true that the Jews, in our Savior's time, used 
the word Gehenna in the sense of endless punishment. 
There is not a single instance in all their writings where 
they so used it until two or three hundred years after 
Christ. So it is worse than folly to assume that they 
would so understand Jesus when he pronounced the 
judgment of Gehenna upon them; and my friend is not 
to bolster his false doctrine by such false assertions ; and 
more, he cannot show a single instance where the Jews 
used the word aionios to express the endlessness of pun- 
ishment. 

Rev. Albert Dewes, perpetual curate of St. August- 
ine's, Pendlebury, Manchester, published his researches 
in reference to the word Gehenna, and he asserts that he 
had read everything from the Jewish writings within 
three hundred years of Christ, and the result of the most 
critical examination is this: "There are but two pas- 
sages which even a superficial reader could consider to be 
corroborative of the assertion that the Jews understood 
Gehenna to be a place of everlasting punishment." And 
he adds of these two that "neither, when investigated, 
could be held to lend any support." I could add much 
mere on this point, but time will not permit. My friend 



324 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

is as much out of date in his references as in his theology. 
He takes these passages out of their true relation, and. 
in applying them to individual cases, makes them proofs 
of annihilation. For destruction of soul and body is 
that, whatever the word destroy means in other cases. 

The reference to the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost 
is most unfortunate for my friend. Let us see : "Verily, 
I say unto you, all sins shall be forgiven unto men, and 
blasphemies, wherewithsoever they shall blaspheme." But 
one exception is made here; and if all sins and rlas- 
phemies shall be forgiven unto men. what then he- 
comes of all my good brother's work in reference to judg- 
ment on men's sins and the place of their future punish- 
ment? All these sins shall be forgiven, and none shall 
go to his everlasting punishment but those' who blas- 
pheme the Holy Spirit! Why did he not save time, and 
go to this text at once ? 

But even the one exception docs not help him. Id 
Matt. xii. 32 it is limited to this age (axon) and the 
coming; and there were ages to come. "That in the ages 
to come he might show the exceeding riches of his grace/* 
Eph. ii. 7. He quotes the G-reek and renders it "not hath 
forgiveness to the eternity.*' "The eternity!" Is there 
more than one eternity, that it should be specialized by 
the definite article the? Would not the age have sounded 
better? And then that points out a special age in which 
this sin should not be forgiven, but should be forgiven in 
the ages to come. In Matthew we have the phrase "this 
world/' aion, age. Is it possible Jesus should use the 
word aion in a limited sense, and again, in the same 
breath, in an unlimited, eternity 1 ? This is another "les- 
son in G-reek" from Brother Daily ! 



4 

MR. hughes' sixth reply. 325 

But before closing I must notice his argument on "the 
end."' which he makes infinitely longer than the begin- 
ning, or mans whole existence on earth. Ba^am's 
poetry is subject to the law of parallelism; and so "Let 
me die the death of the righteous, and let my last end be 
like his," shows he meant death as his last end, having no 
reference to the future. Solomon said : "It is better to 
go to the house of mourning than the house of feasting; 
for that is the end of all men." Eccl. vii. 2. 

Men reach the end. result, of their actions many times 
in this life. Take the words of Paul, "What fruit had 
ye. then, in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? 
For the end of these things is death." The fruit and the 
end are the same. They had it in their sinful state. It 
was moral death. "To be carnally minded is death." 
Rom. viii. 6. But he goes on: "But now, being made 
free from sin. and become the servants of God, ye have 
your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life." 
Bom. vi. 21. 22. They were then in possession of eternal 
life — the end or fruit of their righteousness. "To be 
spiritually minded is life and peace." Bom. viii. 6. "He 
that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal 
life." Jno. vi. 54. 

The end of the wicked, Ps. Ixxiii. 17-19, is expressed in 
the text. It was" cutting off from the earth: "Surely 
thou didst set them in slippery places; thou eastedst 
them down into destruction." The force of the text, 
"Behold, the righteous shall be recompensed in the earth, 
much more the wicked and the sinner," Prov. xi. 31, is 
that under the law it was temporal rewards and punish- 
ments, and there was no threat even of future punish- 
ment 



326 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

"The end" in Phil. iii. 18, 19, is the appropriate and 
natural one that results from glutony, debauchery and 
licentiousness." He that soweth to the flesh, shall of the 
flesh reap corruption." Gal. vi. 8. Men sow to the flesh 
here, and they reap of the flesh here also. That is the 
end of their sowing. 

Of the text, Ps. xi. 5, 6, "Upon the wicked shall be 
rain snares, fire, and brimstone, and an horrible tem- 
pest; this shall be the portion of their cup," Dr. Adam 
Clarke says : "This is a manifest allusion to the destruc- 
tion of Sodom and Gomorrah." He also says: "Cup 
is sometimes put for plenty, for abundance; but here it 
seems to be used to express the quantum of sorrow and 
misery which the wicked shall have on the earth." My 
friends reference to the word "portion" does not repre- 
sent the scriptural use of it. "The men of this world 
have their portion in this life." Ps. xvii. 14. 

Mr. Daily again repeats his bare assertions of man's 
infinite responsibility to God. Eather God should be un- 
der infinite responsibility to his creatures, that the exist- 
ence he has conferred upon them unasked should not be 
an endless curse 1 What has God done for the non-elect 
to put them under obligation to him ? He gave them ex- 
istence under total disability. There is no help for them 
but in him, and he does not extend it. For he hates 
them here, and will hate them to 'all eternity. Well 
might Dr. Whedon say : "By foreordination God damns 
them to hell an eternity before they were born ; holding 
them guilty by an atrocious lie of a sin they never com- 
mitted, he doubly damns them; subjecting them to a 
paralysis of soul by which they cannot repent without the 
spirit, and arbitrarily without the spirit, he trebly damns 
them ; finally hemming them in by overruling motives to 



MR. DAILY'S SEVENTH SPEECH. 327 

impenitence, without power of contrary choice, he quad- 
ruple damns them." This makes God the sole sinner of 
the universe and man his impotent victim, 
(Time expired.) 



MB. DAILY'S SEVENTH SPEECH. 

Gentlemen Moderators, Respected Audience. and 
Respected Opponent : I am now before you to make 
my closing speech. His p]ay upon the words "The dead" 
is weak indeed. I have proved that all that are in their 
graves shall be raised, some to everlasting life, and some 
to damnation. John v. 28, 29. To attempt an escape 
from this positive proof, and other scriptures equally 
plain, my opponent denies that "the dead" means "dead 
bodies in the grave," insisting on "the grave" meaning 
the literal burying place. This seems to be his only hope 
of escape from the arguments and proofs I have ad- 
vanced. I now cut him entirely off from that supposed 
escape. It is a fact known by all that I have shown by 
reference to Christ as "the dead" and Lazarus in the 
same sense that their dead bodies were meant. But he 
says Lazarus was but a single, special case, and "the 
dead" means the multitude of the dead. He says the 
dead are dead to us, but they are alive to God. He 
then quotes. "God is not the God of the dead, but of the 
living, for all live unto him." Xow this proves that 



328 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

the term "the dead'' means the dead bodies for he says 
God is not the God of the dead, but defines that phrase 
himself as meaning dead bodies. According to his own 
argument, then, "the dead" in this text means "dead 
bodies," and yet he has asserted over and over that "the 
dead" never means "dead bodies." In saying that God is 
not the God of the dead but of the living, Jesus refuted 
the doctrine of the Sadducees, in which they denied 
the existence of the soul in the future state. In assert- 
ing that "the dead are raised," using the historic present, 
he refuted their doctrine in which they denied the 
resurrection of the body. As "the dead" meant dead 
bodies, and "the living" mean living souls, if the 
dead are raised it will be the "dead bodies" that will be 
raised. "The dead" is mentioned many times in 1. Cor. 
xv., in connection with the resurrection of Christ, in 
which the apostle shows that Christ died, was buried, and 
rose again the third day. As it was Christ's body that 
died, was buried, and rose again the third day, the 
resurrection of "the dead," of which Christ was an ex- 
ample, means the resurrection of "dead bodies." So "the 
dead" means "dead bodies." The body and the spirit are 
both God's. I. Cor. vi. 20. The vile body is to be 
changed and fashioned like unto the glorious body of our 
risen Redeemer, for the reason that it, as well as the 
soul, belongs to him. Phil. iii. 21. So when it is de- 
clared that he is the God of the living and not of the 
dead the notion of the Sadducees that death holds the 
entire being of the departed was refuted, and the grand 
truth was taught that the body which was once living 
should live again in the likeness of the glorious body of 
Jesus, so that God was declared to be the God of the en- 



MR. DAILY'S SEVENTH SPEECH. 329 

tire being of his saints. Thus the two false notions 
of the Sadducees were refuted^ that the souls of the de- 
parted were not living and that the bodies would never 
live. 

I exposed his mistake that "the deep" was from hades 
in the text, "Who shall descend into the deep, that 
is to bring up Christ again from the dead." Admitting 
that I was right, that "deep'' is from abnsson, which is 
abyss, he then said it means the same as hades, and that 
the grave is not referred to. He has never attempted 
any reply to my argument that the body only is held 
by the abyss of death or hades, where a mere state of 
death is referred to. that the soul lives on after its sep- 
aration from the body, and so if there is a resurrection 
of the dead at all it will be a resurrection of that which 
is in a state of death. Wherever the body is while held 
by the abyss of death is its grave, so when it is raised 
from that abyss it is raised from the grave. It was so 
with the body of Christ and it will be so with the bodies 
of all in the final resurrection of the just and unjust. 

As Dr. Schaff does give to aion the final meaning of 
"endless duration, eternity/ 5 be plants himself squarely 
against my oponent and on my side of the question. To 
say that the first meaning given by a lexicographer is the 
final and generally accepted meaning betrays an ignorance 
that is unworthy of a mere tyro in diction. The first 
meaning given often leads to the final and generally 
accepted definition, as the example of the learned Dr. 
Schaff shows. As Archbishop Trench concludes that the 
tempera! periods, in their sum and aggregate, "adum- 
brate the mighty conceptions of eternity," he, with Dr. 
Schaff, stands with me and against my friend. 



330 SKCOND PROPOSITION 

As to the meaning of axon and aionios, there can be no 
doubt that the translators were right in rendering them 
eternity and eternal, forever, everlasting, etc. They must 
have been acquainted with the Greek language, and so 
must have given the correct rendering. The learned 
Moses Stuart very correctly says, "Either the declara- 
tions of the Scriptures do not establish the fact that God 
and his glory and praise and happiness are endless, nor 
that the happiness of the righteous in the future world is 
endless; or else they establish the fact that the punish- 
ment of the wicked is endless. The whole stand or fall 
together. There can, from the very nature of the anti- 
thesis, be no room for rational doubt here, in what man- 
ner we interpret the declarations of the sacred writers. 
We must either admit the endless misery of hell, or give 
up the endless happiness of heaven/' Mr. Hughes 
dare not deny that the Greek word for always is aei, and 
the word for being (participle) is on. These are com- 
bined in the word aion, always being. To say that 
eternal does not express duration but kind is a bald as- 
sertion made in the face of all lexicographers of any 
note. It is a weak cause indeed that requires such sub- 
terfuge to be taken by its defenders. 

I want now in the time I shall stand before you in 
this closing address to give you a brief summary of what 
has been gone over by us in the two days we have been 
discussing this proposition. T shall first state some 
things about which we differ. First, we differ in regard 
to what constitutes the human family. According to 
Mr. Hughes' view no one ever saw a human being. The 
human family, as he understands it, consists of a family 
of spirits, and beings born male and female are net 



MR. DAILY'S SEVENTH SPEECH. 33 1 

human beings at all. There can he no such a thing as a 
human being born of the flesh according to his position. 
My position is that the human family consists of the 
family of Adam, first created in him of the dust, male 
and female, into whom was breathed the breath of life. 
These human beings, visible and tangible, possessing 
spirits, are under law to God, and must either rise to 
endless bliss above or sink to endless woe. 

Second, we differ in regard to what the sowing is that 
is mentioned in the 15th chapter of First Corinthians. 
I believe it is the body that is sown into death when the 
spirit separates from it. He says it is the man that is 
sown here before death, both spirit and body. He has no 
proof whatever -for his position and so has given none. 
The Bible says, "It is sown a natural hodj, ,:> which set- 
tles the question. 

Third, we differ in regard to what it is that is raised 
in the resurrection of the dead. I have proved that it 
is dead when the spirit separates from it at 
death, quoting "The spirit without the body is dead/' 
To this he has paid no attention. Having proved by this 
it is the body that is dead, T have shown that if there is 
any resurrection of the rlead it must necessarily be a 
resurrection of the body. His position is that it is the 
living spirit that is raised into a new body. This is no 
resurrection of the dead at all, but a mere lifting up of 
the living. 

Fourth, we differ in regard to the resurrection of 
Christ. He has not attempted to show what was raised. 
but has emploved his time in denying what I have abund- 
antly proved, that the body which was laid in the sep- 
ulchre, the very body that died on the cross, was raised 



33 2 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

from the dead. His position seems to be that a new 
body was formed for him, hut that is a denial of any 
resurrection whatever. Tf the body was not raised, but a 
new one formed, then the Christ that died on the cross 
was not raised at all. He has not produced a single 
passage to prove that a new body was formed and given 
him, for no such passage could be produced. When christ 
said, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will 
raise it again/"-' he referred to his body. This Mr. 
Hughes has not attempted to deny. When the angel 
said to the early visitors at the sepulchre, ''Come see the 
place where the Lord lay: he is not here; he is risen as 
he said/' the body of Christ was meant. This with 
aboundant other proof has been given on this point, but 
my opponent has kept up his denial in the face of all 
these plain facts. He had to do this to sustain the doc- 
trine of Fniversalism, and it has been surprising how he 
lias retained his composure under such overwhelming 
defeat. 

Fifth, my argument founded on the dissension be- 
tween the Sadducees and Pharisees, caused by Paul tak- 
ing the side of the Pharisees on the resurrection of the 
dead, is positive proof that he believed in the resurrec- 
tion of the body, for that was the belief of the Pharisees. 
As Mr. Hughes takes issue with me on that he places 
himself on the side of the Sadducees. 

Sixth, it is declared by the prophet that "T will ran- 
som them from the power of the grave, I will redeem 
them from death." The spirit cannot be ransomed from 
the power of the grave, for it never goes there. Tf the 
body which goes to the grave is never raised from it, 
and which goes down into death is never redeemed from 



mr. m:ly s seventh speech. 333 

it, then there is no ransom from one or redemption from 
the other. 

Seventh, our Saviour endorsed the doctrine of the 
Jews, as expressed by Martha, when lie informed her 
that her brother should rise again. He demonstrated 
the resurrection to which lie referred when he raised the 
body of Lazarus from the grave. That he was speaking 
of the resurrection of the dead there can he no question. 
That lie raised the dead is equally certain. It is thus 
taught and demonstrated by Christ what is meant by the 
resurrection of the dead. This is unmistakable proof 
by teaching and demonstration of what is meant by the 
resurrection of the dead. 

I have proved that there is a contrast between the 
wicked and the righteous here, at death, and at the 
resurrection. He has admitted that contrast up to the 
time of the resurrection, a time he never has been able 
to locate, however. Tn admitting the punishment of the 
finally wicked and impenitent after death, he admitted 
this contrast and in admitting that there would be a 
resurrection both of the just and the unjust he ad- 
mitted the contrast up to that point. His failure to 
prove any change after the resurrection or even after 
death in the condition or state of the wicked decided the 
issue in my favor. 

I have proved the general judgment by a number of 
passages, and have proved that the wicked are separated 
from the righteous and sent away into punishment at the 
same time the righteous are admitted into a glorified 
state. Paul reasoned with Felix "of righteousness, tem- 
perance and a judgment to come." "The Lord knoweth 
how to deliver the godly out of temptation and to reserve 



||4 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished." 
This judgment is after death, for "it is appointed unto 
men once to die, but after this the judgment." As there 
will be a resurrection both of the just and the unjust, this 
judgment will be after the resurrection. This is the 
eternal judgment referred to in Heb. vi. 2. This day of 
judgment has been appointed, by which God has dis- 
tinguished it from all other acts of his divine providence. 
Acts xvii. 31. 

As to the place of punishment, there ought to be no 
dispute between us over that, as he has admitted and 
even contended that the finally wicked would be punished 
in the world to come. I proved there is such a place by 
passages that cannot possibly be construed to mean any- 
thing else. I quoted many passages that prove that 
Christ confirmed the opinion the Jews already enter- 
tained that there is a place of punishment in the future 
world. If they had been wrong he would have corrected 
them, but instead of doing so he taught the same thing in 
the scriptures I quoted. 

I proved that the future punishment of the wicked is 
represented as their end. If TTniversalism were true the 
end of the wicked would be as favorable and desirable as 
the righteous, as the end would be the same. But the 
Bible teaches that their end is death, and this is said in 
contrast to the everlasting life to be enjoyed by the 
righteous. 

I have proved that the existence of God, the bliss of the 
righteous, and the punishment of the wicked, are all 
designated by the very same terms. The Greek terms 
used, and the English words given in translation, all go 
t« «6tablisb without the shadow of doubt the equal dura- 



• MR. »AI«.Y'» •tfYBNTH jMPSflMflt. %%$ 

tion of God's existence, the joys of the righteous, and 
the punishment of the wicked. 

My opponent, after taking the position that there u 
punishment in the future world, tries to make it appear 
that all punishment referred to in the Bible is confined 
to this world. These futile attempts only betray the ex- 
treme weakness of the cause he tries to bolster up. 

I feel glad that it has been my privilege to stand up in 
support and defence of the truth, the plain and unmis- 
takable teaching of the sacred and holy word of God. 
I close with the thought that we may not meet any more 
in this world of sorrow. If we do not, I hope we may 
meet where joy will be endless and where all tears will be 
forever wiped from our eyes. I do not know that all 
this congregation will be in that happy home. I cannot 
pass judgment, for it is not mine to pass, but I can 
proclaim the blessed gospel which is so sweet to me and 
to all those who love the Lord. When the time comes 
for me to breathe out the last breath of this life, I hope 
my Lord will say, "It is enough, come up higher." Time 
is not long enough, and eternity will not be too long, to 
sing praises unto our heavenly Father for his wonderful 
grace and mercy. Afflictions may come, it matters not, 
for God has promised to remove all our afflictions, and 
I praise him for his promise. I thank you for your 
attention. (Time expired.) 



336 SECOND PROPOSITION, 



ME. HUGHES; CLOSING NEGATIVE. 

Gentlemen Moderator, Ladies and Gentlemen, 
and Respected Opponent — Our rules forbid any new 
matter in the final negative, except in reply to what 
may have been introduced in the closing affirmative for 
the first time. I shall endeavor to comply with the rule. 

My friend makes reference again to the phrase "the 
dead,'' and reaffirms that it means "dead bodies in the 
grave." But I must be allowed to say he has never found 
a passage where it so means, and it was most vital for 
his cause for him to do so. He never gave us an instance 
where Christ was referred to as "the dead." Those 
words could not be applied to one person. They include 
all the dead. In the case of Lazarus, the revised version 
leaves out the words "the dead" as not being in the 
original text. To this I called his attention. So he has 
utterly failed as to both Jesus and Lazarus. But he 
says I defined the words in Luke, "God is not the God of 
the dead," as meaning dead, bodies. With the Sadducees, 
who denied the existence of "angel or spirit," there would 
be nothing remaining but dead bodies, and as God is the 
God of the living spirit, it was the souls of Abraham, 
Isaac and Jacob that were then enjoying the resurrec- 
tion; for Jesus said "the dead are rained!' And it was 
not the natural bodies that were to be raised at some 
future time. I was not defining those words to mean 
dead bodies. How could I when I had been demanding 
for two whole days of my friend a passage where they so 
mean? 



MR. HUGHES' SEVENTH REPLY. 337 

But the word abyss means the grave of the bodies 
wherever they may be, in a literal tomb, in the sea, or 
anywhere. So a body might decay on top of ground 
and never be buried, and still be in the abyss, the grave ! 
Necessity is said to be mother of invention ! The word 
abyss or its original occurs in the New Testament but 
nine times: in Eom. x. 7 and Lukeviii.31, where the 
demons besought Christ that he would not send them out 
into the deep abyss — surely not the grave — and the re- 
maining times in the book of Eevelation, where it is 
rendered the "bottomless pit," where the devil was cast. 
In no instance does it mean the grave, but is akin to 
hades; and as Peter says of Christ that "he was not left 
in hades/' so Christ's real resurrection was from hades, 
and not from the literal grave. 

But, says my brother, the words of Christ, "now that 
the dead are raised," is in the historic present. Nay, 
verily ; it was the statement of a then present fact. Paul 
uses the same tense, speaking of the resurrection : "For 
if the dead are not raised, neither hath Christ been 
raised. 1 Cor. xv. 16 (revised version) . Again in 2 Cor. ' 
y. 1 : "For we know if our earthly house of our taber- 
nacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, a house 
not made with hands, eternal in the heavens." One 
succeeds the other. "We have" says the apostle, the new 
resurrection body. 

As to the resurrection of Christ, Brother Daily affirmed 
at the first that he appeared in a spiritual body, and that 
was the reason he could pass through a material door. 
And that was my ground. For the greater part of the 
forty days before his ascension he was invisible to ma- 
terial eyes, and was only seen of them as he manifested 
himself to them. He appeared in different forms, and 



338 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

was only known to them as he revelaed himself to them. 
This being so, it could not be his material body. That 
he showed his pierced side, hands and feet was but one 
of his manifestations for the convincing of his disciples. 

While on this subject, I will finish what I have to say 
on the resurrection of the natural body. My friend has 
nothing to say in reference to Job "seeing God in his 
flesh." For the evidence was too strong that Job hoped 
to see God "out of his .flesh/' or "from, his flesh/' and so 
it was too evident a proof against the resurrection of the 
body. 

The language of Hosea xiii. 14, "I will ransom them 
from the power of the grave," is properly from the power 
of sheol, which corresponds to hades. So it is understood 
by St. Paul in (1 Cor. xv. 55) "0 grave (hades) where 
is thy victory." Sheol or hades is the place or state of 
the dead, the state from whence Christ was. raised, and 
from which all men will be raised, and. not from literal 
graves. It is therefore a very strong argument for my 
position, and diametrically opposed to my friend's. 
4 The temple of Christ's body was raised again when he 
put on his glorious body. The particles of dust compos- 
ing the material body are not essential to its validity at 
some other time. T showed you this when I referred you 
to the change of material bodies, and that the body might 
be consumed by and become a part of another body, and 
so impossible for both to have the same material in body 
again. 

I called his attention and yours, my friends, to the fact 
that Paul did not think he had settled the doctrine of 
the resurrection of the body in the first half of the 15th 
of 1st Cor., where Mr. Daily has made the most of his 
argument. For at the 35th verse he calls up that ques- 



MR. HUGHES' SEVENTH REPLY 339 

tion for the first time, "How are the dead raised up, and 
with what body do they come?" And even then it was 
not how are dead bodies to be raised, but how are the 
dead raised up, and with what body do they come? The 
dead, and the bodies they are to have are two different 
things. The answer is : "Thou fool, that which thou 
sowest is not quickened except it die. And that which 
thou sowest, thou sowest not that body which 
shall be." As long as those words stand, the resurrec- 
tion of the natural body cannot be. 

The phrase "the dead" expresses the relation in which 
they stand to us. We call them dead. But that is not 
the relation in which they stand to God. They are alive 
to him. In that relation they "the dead are raised." 
They did not come into that relation by the resurrection 
of their natural bodies, but by being "clothed upon with 
the house which is from heaven." 2 Cor. v. 2. The 
man was composed of "soul and body." There was a 
separation of the two, which was death. The soul was 
"clothed upon with the building of God, the house not 
made with hands which is eternal in the heavens." 2 
Cor. v. 1. This was the resurrection. 
. J most clearly showed that St. Paul nor did Jesus 
endorse all the absurd vagaries of the Pharisees regard- 
ing the resurrection, only as to the fact of a resurrection. 
Paul had hope toward God that there should be a res- 
urrection both of the just and the unjust. I called at- 
tention to the fact that the words "of the dead" do not 
occur in the original, and so this is not a hope that some 
are to remain unjust in the state of the dead, and then 
to be raised unjust, which would be a most unrighteous 
hope indeed. Paul's hope was that all who die in Adam 
should be made alive in Christ. . 



,34° SECOND PROPOSITION 

I Martha's Jewish belief in a future day resurrection 

Lwas corrected by Jesus when he called her mind back to 

himself by those emphatic words, "I am the resurrection 

and the life." And how Such language can be construed 

"to prove the Jewish idea is beyond my comprehension, 

1 when this same Jesns speaks of the Father that "raiseih 

; up the dead and quickeneth them." Jno. v. 21. 

In stating the things wherein we differ, he names the 
'constitution of the human family as one of them. And 
he says, according to my view no one ever saw a human 
being. But I stated distinctly that man here is both 
soul and body, and that hereafter he will be both soul 
and body, but there have a spiritual body instead of a 
-material one. So far I suppose I have seen as many 
s human beings as he has. But I have looked deeper than 
the mere body for man's true characteristics, while he 
has been engrossed with the outward, and so material- 
istic as to have not seen more than the things temporal. 
2 Cor. v. 18. He believes the material possesses the 
spiritual, while T believe the spiritual is the more im- 
portant part and possesses the material, which is "the 
earthly house of our tabernacle." % Cor. v-. 1. It is 
"our vile body that is to be fashioned anew like unto 
his glorious body," and "the body of his glory" is not 
;, his material body, nor will he ours which is to be like 
his. Phil, iii, 21. revised version. "Flesh and blood 
" cannot inherit the kingdom of God, neither doth corrup- 
: tion inherit incorruption." 1 Cor. xv. 50. - 

The sowing of the seed is used as the illustration of 

; the sowing of man. But the seed is sown before it dies. 

Man is therefore in his sown state before he dies ; and 

'the sowing is not the burial of a dead body. And I 

? ^showed you how absurd it i$ to speak of the body as 



MR. HUGHES' SEVENTH- REPLY ^01 

being buried in corruption (a word meaning spiritual 
corruption) and in weakness, in dishonor and a natural 
body in the sense of Brother Daily. 

He tells you he has proved a general judgment by a 
number of passage?. If my friend ever quoted a pass- 
age, or even made a simple assertion without proof, it 
was always proved in his estimation, however much was 
said to the contrary. God may "reserve the ungodly 
under punishment unto the day of judgment" (for that 
is the correct translation), and there is undoubtedly 
"judgment to come/' but that does not prove that it is a 
judgment at the end of time. For then Christ gives up 
his kingdom and is no longer a judge. During his 
reign he has been judging the world. "Behold the days 
come, saith the Lord, that I will raise unto David a 
righteous Branch, and a king shall reign. and prosper, 
and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth." 
Jer. xxiii. 5. 

The end of the wicked does not refer to the final state 
of man. "The house of mourning is the end of all men/' 
And there is no passage speaking of the end of man that 
refers to his final state. I gave an example in Bom. vi. 
21 where the fruit men had in their sins was ihe end 
death. But afterwards it was said of them that, being 
free from sin, they had their frvit unto holiness, and 
the end everlasting life." 

But Div Serial? gives to axon the final meaning of end- 
less duration. And "To say that the first meaning given 
by a lexicographer is the final and generally accepted 
meaning, he betrays -an ignorance that is unworthy of a 
mere tyro in diction." That is a small ebullition of. my 
friend's beautiful temper that shows itself on occasions 
when he is up to a difficulty he ea.»n.©t g^rm^jiBt It? 



342 SECOND PROPOSITION. 

cannot be profane, so he must slur his "worthy oppo- 
nent." It is true that words may change in meaning, 
and the lexicographers note it, and the attained meaning 
takes its place in the dictionary. But when did aion 
reach eternity as its first and leading meaning ? It had 
not with Dr. Schafr 1 , nor with Archbishop Trence. Here 
are his words : "Aiones in 1 Tim. i. 17 must denote not 
the worlds in the usual concrete meaning of the term, 
but according to the more usual temporal meaning of 
aion in the New Testament, the ages, the temporal 
periods whose sum and aggregate adumbrate the mighty 
conception of eternity." 

The usual meaning of aion in the New Testament "is 
therefore temporal periods/' "the ages." That is all I 
have contended for. I have said when the nature or 
circumstances of the things to which they are applied 
demand it, it so means, and have asked my friend to 
show what there is in the nature or circumstance con- 
nected with punishment which demands it to be endless; 
and I get no answer. But the sum and aggregate of 
"these temporal periods," "the ages/' adumbrate ike 
mighty conception of eternity. But if a temporal age, 
or aion, be repeated a million of times,, it will not make 
eternity. A tyro in learning ought to know that. And 
Trench only asserts that they will adumbrate the mighty 
conception of eternity. To adumbrate does not give a 
full conception of it. No man ever had or can have a 
full conception of eternity. And to adumbrate is only 
to give a faint shadow; and this shadow is no more 
eternity than a shadow is the sun. But how do Mr. 
Daily's words sound alongside of his rule ? "A word 
must be taken in its literal sense unless the context im- 
periously demands a different meaning." What is, 



therefore, the literal meaning of aionf Dr. Schaff says 
"life, generation, age;" then "indefinitely, for endless 
duration, eternity." And Trench says it means a "tem- 
poral period" and "age." And it is only by -an. aggre- 
gation, of them that we get a shadow of the idea of 
eternity. ; 

You will remember I have, told you that the use of 
aion in the plural and its repetition as ages of ages was 
to raise the conception of the mind of increased dura- 
tion. My friend then hotly contested my position, and 
claimed it was only for emphasis that we have plurals 
and reduplications; but now he has at last blundered 
upon the truth in his quotation from Trench that it is 
only by taking the sum and aggregate of periods and 
ages we get the shadow of a conception of eternity. 

But notwithstanding all this, and his yielding to the 
authority of Schaff and Trench, he again asserts that 
aion is derived from aei on, always being. But Dr. 
Sch&ff says that it came probably from ao aemi, to 
breathe, to blow. Now, either Mr. DMly or Dr. Schaff 

is wrong. It is hardly worth while to tell you, my 
friends, which is right. Especially after Mr. Daily has 
accepted the definition of Dr. Schaff. 

Because the word aionios as applied to God means 
endless is no proof that when it is applied to punish- 
ment it must mean endless. No more than that it 
proves that the Aaronic priesthood is endless for the 
same reason, or in hundreds of other cases where the 
word is applied to other things temporal in their nature. 
Remember that the word "aion in its more common 
usag£ in the New Testament means age/' and that is "a 
strong reason why it does not mean endless when ap- 
plied to punishment. My friend has not shown that the 
word mondos is applied to the blessedness of the rigiit- 



$44 *$eom> proposition. 

eons in the future state, but I have shown that it is ap- 
plied positively to their eternal life here. "He that 
heareth my words, and believeth on him that sent me, 
hath eternal life, and shall not come into condemnation, 
but is. passed from death unto life." Jno. v. 24. 

The fact that the Greek word kotasis for punishment 
in Matt. xxv. 46 means chastisement, punishment for 
correction, is an invincible argument against endless 
punishment. For punishment for correction in the. very 
nature of things cannot be vindictive and endless. So it 
is said: "The Lord will not cast off forever. But 
though he cause grief, } r et will he have compassion ac- 
cording to the multitude of his mercies. For lie doth 
not afflict willingly, nor grieve the children of men." 
Leam. iii. 31-33. "He retaineth not his anger forever, 
because he delighteth in mercy." Micah vii. 18. Isa. 
ivii. t These passages show the nature of punish- 
ment; and declare with positiveness that it cannot be 
endless. 

Now, at the conclusion of this discussion I can but 
express my gratitude to you, my friends, for the respect- 
ful attention you have given us. To the Moderators 
also, who have presided over us so impartially. To my 
friend who has battled so earnestly for the truth as he 
understands it, I have none but the kindest of feelings 
and the fullest respect. While I believe him mistaken 
in his theology, yet I believe him conscientious, and that 
he labors with the best of intentions ; and that some day 
he will see in the clearer light, and his heart made 
warm in the better creed. I pray God's blessing upon 
you all; and may this discussion tend to the promotion 
of truth and righteousness in the world. 
..,tim$- mpir&4. 



APR 12 1910 




One copy del. to Cat. Div. 

it : 



